Low rates of replicability in behavioral and cognitive sciences have prompted large-scale efforts to increase transparency and openness in reporting. Such practices directly impact researchers’ ability to evaluate studies, replicate procedures, and reproduce empirical findings. This study evaluated the prevalence of research transparency practices (e.g., disclosure of sample size determination, preregistration) and research openness (e.g., share of data, code, and stimuli) across all articles published in Human Factors over the years 2020 to 2024. Most articles made no mention of transparency and openness practices. Future initiatives to improve transparency and openness in Human Factors (e.g., adopting formal policies at the journal level) may be worthwhile.
DoaneR.Munoz Gomez AndradeF.Marra-DottsJ.GroetschS.LichterK. A.HykA.DoA.LiB.JohnsonJ.HoxhaB.HowellF. G.BakerMoussaouiJ. R.McCarleyJ. S. (2025). The prevalence of replication studies in Human Factors (2020-2024). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
5.
EbelP.BazilinskyyP.ColleyM.GoodridgeC. M.HockP.JanssenC. P.SandhausH.SrinivasanA. R.WintersbergerP. (2024). Changing lanes toward open science: Openness and transparency in automotive user research. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 94–105). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640792.3675730
6.
SorollaR.MontoyaA. K.ReifmanA.CarpenterT.LewisN. A.JrAbersonC. L.BostynD. H.ConriqueB. G.NgB. W.SchoemannA. M.SoderbergC. (2024). Power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size. Personality and social Psychology Review, 28(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241228328
7.
HardwickeT. E.ThibaultR. T.ClarkeB.MoodieN.CrüwellS.SchiavoneS. R.HandcockS. A.NghiemK. A.ModyF.EerolaT.VazireS. (2024). Prevalence of transparent research practices in psychology: A cross-sectional study of empirical articles published in 2022. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(4), 25152459241283477. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241283477
8.
HardwickeT. E.ThibaultR. T.KosieJ. E.WallachJ. D.KidwellM. C.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979806
9.
HardwickeT. E.WagenmakersE.-J. (2023). Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2
10.
KerrC.NixonA.WildD. (2010). Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.30
11.
LakensD. (2019). The Value of Preregistration for Psychological Science: A Conceptual Analysis [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbh4w
LakensD.MesquidaC.RastiS.DitroiloM. (2024). The benefits of preregistration and registered reports. Evidence-Based Toxicology, 2(1), 2376046. https://doi.org/10.1080/2833373X.2024.2376046
14.
LindsayD. S. (2023). A plea to psychology professional societies that publish journals: Assess computational reproducibility. Meta-Psychology, 7, Article e4020. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.4020
15.
McCarleyJ. S.RoseL. E.FischerS.HaneyM. S.HykA.KuhnK.MeredithB.MoussaouiJ. R.Munoz Gomez AndradeF.PietrokE. M.SilbersteinS. L. (2023). Open science practices in Human Factors: 2017–2022. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 1566–1570. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192276
16.
MiyakawaT. (2020). No raw data, no science: Another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain, 13(1), 24, s13041-020-0552–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
19.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
SimonsohnU. (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1875–1888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480366
22.
VizeC. E.PhillipsN. L.MillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (2025). On the use and misuses of preregistration: A reply to Klonsky (2024). Assessment, 32(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241275256
