Improving Psychological Science through Transparency and Openness: An Overview

Hales et al. (2019) wrote a plain-language tour of open-science tools. They show how preregistration, open data, and transparent reporting cost almost nothing yet make behavior-analytic work easier to trust and repeat.

The paper is a narrative review, not an experiment. It gathers checklists, free websites, and journal policies you can start using today.

The authors found that most quality problems in psychology come from hidden flexibility. Preregistering your single-subject design closes that loophole without extra grant money.

They also found that sharing data and code lets other BCBAs rerun your graphs in minutes. This speeds up clinical decisions and builds a shared evidence base.

Sham et al. (2014) prove the need Hales describes. Their audit of PRT studies shows published papers claim 22 PND points higher effectiveness than dissertations. Preregistration would have exposed that gap before the journals printed it.

St. Peter et al. (2023) extend the same honesty call to procedural fidelity. Their focus groups reveal veterans often skip fidelity reports; Hales gives the free tools to fix it.

Anonymous (2023) shows what happens when guidelines lack the rigor Hales promotes. Their review of 70 rare-disorder guidelines finds most miss basic transparency steps. Using Hales’ checklist would raise those standards overnight.

You can boost your next study’s credibility in one lunch break. Pick your dependent variable, write it on the Open Science Framework, and date-stamp the file. Share your raw data and R code when you submit. Reviewers and RBTs will thank you, and your clinical recommendations will carry more weight with funders and families.