• what has and what has not yet been achieved,
• what are still prevailing problems, and
• whether the aforementioned open science standards have led to new insights about psychological phenomena.

Possible topics of conference presentations may include:

Methodological and statistical issues such as:

• What kind evidence for p-hacking, questionable research practices (QRPs) and HARKING (hypothesizing after the results are known) exists and what has possibily changed over the course of time?
• What are methodological key features of successfully replicated studies and what can be learned from that?
• To what extent do statistical corrections for publication bias and/or for effects of questionable research practices work?

Conceptual issues such as:

• Open science and journals: How and to which extent have open science standards changed journals' publication policies? Which types of open science requirements have mostly been implemented? How prevalent are open science requirements in psychological journals in general?
• Quantifiable reactions of the field or subfields towards implemented changes. Examples: Studies on the number of articles with open data since these changes have been implemented. Studies on the differences among disciplines with respect to the speed of implementation of changes.
• Effectiveness of open science: Do the claims of the open science movement hold up? We welcome metascience studies on the effectiveness of open science standards. For example, is there evidence that the implementation of open science standards has led to an increase of statistical power (frequentist statistics) or more evidence (Bayesian statistics)? To which degree do preregistered studies actually follow the preregistered design and analysis?

Invited Keynote Speakers