Are Psychologists Ready for Stricter Journal Policies on Open Science? Insights into Pre-registration, Data Sharing, and Open Peer Review Across Tenure and Methodology

This study examines how Open Science policies—such as pre-registration, data sharing, and open peer review—affect psychology researchers' likelihood of submitting to academic journals, while also considering the roles of tenure status and research methodology. A survey of 149 psychology researchers indicates that journals with moderately stringent policies, where Open Science practices are optional or encouraged, are more likely to attract submissions. Conversely, researchers tend to avoid journals that disregard Open Science altogether. While mandatory policies are not widely endorsed, the likelihood of submission to journals with the strictest policies remains above 58% across all categories. Non-tenured researchers are more inclined to submit to journals with stricter policies compared to their tenured counterparts, while no significant differences are observed between experimental and non-experimental researchers.These findings highlight a growing acceptance of stricter Open Science practices among psychology researchers. They suggest that psychology journal editors, by adopting moderately stringent or even stricter policies, could align with this cultural shift without risking a decline in submissions. On the contrary, journals ignoring Open Science may face challenges in attracting papers in an evolving academic landscape.