Clusters & Sub-clusters

9 Academic Structures and Institutions

19 sub-clusters · 305 references

Attainment of a grounding in topics related to academia and academics. Students should understand how individuals, teams, institutions, and academic culture work together to promote (or hinder) openness, inclusion, diversity, equity, and transparency. Gathering perspectives on navigating scientific and academic life. Learning the challenges and rewards in the academic setting, the “hidden curriculum” in academic life. There are 17 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process:

Accessibility

Accessibility refers to making data, research environments, teaching and research outputs usable (e.g. Universal Design and hybrid participation options) by as many people as possible.

  • Geange, S. R., von Oppen, J., Strydom, T., Boakye, M., Gauthier, T. J., Gya, R., Halbritter, A. H., Jessup, L. H., Middleton, S. L., Navarro, J., Pierfederici, M. E., Chacón‐Labella, J., Cotner, S., Farfan‐Rios, W., Maitner, B. S., Michaletz, S. T., Telford, R. J., Enquist, B. J., & Vandvik, V. (2020). Next‐generation field courses: Integrating Open Science and online learning. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3577–3587. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7009
  • Hamilton, L. G., & Petty, S. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290
  • Nightingale, K. P., Anderson, V., Onens, S., Fazil, Q., & Davies, H. (2019). Developing the inclusive curriculum: Is supplementary lecture recording an effective approach in supporting students with Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLDs)? Computers & Education, 130, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.006
  • Nordmann, E., Clark, A., Spaeth, E., & MacKay, J. R. D. (2021). Lights, camera, active! appreciation of active learning predicts positive attitudes towards lecture capture. Higher Education, 83(3), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00674-4
  • Nordmann, E., Hutchison, J., MacKay, J.R.D. (2021). Lecture rapture: the place and case for lectures in the new normal. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(5), 709-716. https:doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2015755
  • Prohn, S., Hall, T., Kunkes, I., McTague, B., & Russell, C. (2020). Leveraging Campus Collaboration to Promote Sustainable, Inclusive Writing Support for All Students. Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education, Vol. 2 No. 2 (2020): Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education. https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2020.2731
  • Puthillam, A., Montilla Doble, L. J., Delos Santos, J. J. I., Elsherif, M. M., Steltenpohl, C. N., Moreau, D., Pownall, M., Silverstein, P., Anand‐Vembar, S., & Kapoor, H. (2023). Guidelines to improve internationalization in the psychological sciences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12847
  • Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons. https://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-592705-5ce358b130.pdf

Citation Politics & Practices

Citation is fundamental for academic writing to acknowledge the ideas and work of authors influenced and informed our own writing. However, the politics of citations perpetuates power imbalance especially for race, gender and neurodivergence. Under-represented individuals (e.g. ethnic minority individuals, women, LGBTQIA2S+ and neurodivergent individuals) tend to be ignored in scholarship, while a small group of white, heterosexual, neurotypical men dominate the scholar discourse and cite themselves. This section provides information detailing the under-represented groups that are under-cited and how a citation diversity statement can be a solution to reduce inequality in citation politics.

  • Bennett, A., Garside, D., Gould van Praag, C., Hostler, T. J., Kherroubi Garcia, I., Plomp, E., Schettino, A., Teplitzky, S., & Ye, H. (2023). A Manifesto for Rewarding and Recognizing Team Infrastructure Roles. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 60–72. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr8
  • Devezer, B., & Penders, B. (2023). Scientific reform, citation politics and the bureaucracy of oblivion. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 857–859. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00274
  • Gould, J., & Valdez, J. W. (2022). The Gollum Effect: The Issue of Research Opportunity Guarding in Academia. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.889236
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Aagaard, K., & Schneider, J. W. (2021). Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/aqyhg
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Oude Maatman, F. J. W., Halffman, W., & Hepkema, W. M. (2022). Automated citation recommendation tools encourage questionable citations. Research Evaluation, 31(3), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac016
  • King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
  • Lawson, K. M., Murphy, B., Azpeitia, J., LOMBARD, E., & Pope, T. (2022). Citing decisions in psychology: A roadblock to cumulative and inclusive science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6kvqg
  • Marks, R. A., Amézquita, E. J., Percival, S., Rougon-Cardoso, A., Chibici-Revneanu, C., Tebele, S. M., Farrant, J. M., Chitwood, D. H., & VanBuren, R. (2023). A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(10). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217564120
  • Bailey, M. (2018). On misogynoir: citation, erasure, and plagiarism. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 762–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447395
  • Opara, I. (2022). How to protect research ideas as a junior scientist. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03750-0
  • Ross, M. B., Glennon, B. M., Murciano-Goroff, R., Berkes, E. G., Weinberg, B. A., & Lane, J. I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608(7921), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
  • Smith, C. A. (2018). Cite Black women: A critical praxis. www.citeblackwomencollective.org/our-praxis.html
  • Smith, C. A., Williams, E. L., Wadud, I. A., & Pirtle, W. N. L. (2021). Cite Black Women: A Critical Praxis (A Statement). Feminist Anthropology, 2(1), 10–17. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/fea2.12040
  • Kwon, D. (2022). The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer. Nature, 603(7902), 568–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00793-1
  • Waterfield, B., Beagan, B. B., & Weinberg, M. (2017). Disabled academics: a case study in Canadian universities. Disability & Society, 33(3), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1411251
  • Wang, X., Dworkin, J. D., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E. B., Bassett, D. S., Zurn, P., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180
  • Zurn, P., Bassett, D. S., & Rust, N. C. (2020). The Citation Diversity Statement: A Practice of Transparency, A Way of Life. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(9), 669–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.06.009

Decolonizing Research Practices

  • Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing Psychological Science: Introduction to the Special Thematic Section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.564
  • Albornoz, D., Huang, M., Martin, I. M., Mateus, M., Touré, A. Y., & Chan, L. (2020). Framing power: Tracing key discourses in open science policies. In Contextualizing openness: Situating open science (pp. 9–34). University of Ottawa Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1qv3j7.6
  • Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
  • Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
  • Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage.
  • Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Sage.
  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
  • Fals-Borda, O. (1987). The Application of Participatory Action-Research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401
  • Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Grove Press.
  • Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1970)
  • Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533–580.
  • Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies. University of Toronto Press.
  • Lugones, M. (2007). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22(1), 186-219.
  • Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. University of California Press.
  • Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press.
  • Mills, C. W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press.
  • Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
  • Moosavi, L. (2025). An introduction to decolonial research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 28(6), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2025.2569255
  • Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.
  • Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press.
  • Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. Routledge.
  • Simpson, L. B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance.
  • Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization, 1(1), 1–40.
  • Wilson, S. (2020). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood publishing.
  • Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.). (2008). White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology. Rowman & Littlefield.

Diversity in Academia

Diversity is the presence of difference within a specific environment, e.g. racial diversity, gender diversity, social-economic diversity, neurodiversity, etc.

Diversity sample and generalizability

Data within Psychology has been primarily from a Western, Educated, Industrious, Rich and Democratic population and generalised the findings to participants across the globe. However, researchers have rarely included Global South or discussed sample diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, gender diversity among other areas. Even when these samples are included, the findings are found to be limited to that specific region.

Equity

Equity is that everyone has access to the same opportunities and that we all have privileges and barriers, thus we do not all start from the same starting position.

Feminist Thought

It aims to understand the nature of gender inequality. Themes explored include discrimination, objectification, oppression, patriarchy, stereotyping, and aesthetics. It examines women's and men's social roles, experiences, interests, chores, and feminist politics in a variety of fields.

  • Anon. (2022). OpenSexism Archives on Open Science. OpenSexism. https://opensexism.wordpress.com/tag/open-science/
  • Brabeck, M. M. (2021). Open Science and Feminist Ethics: Promises and Challenges of Open Access. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211030926
  • Crawford, M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Feminist Theory, Feminist Psychology: A Bibliography of Epistemology, Critical Analysis, and Applications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01015.x
  • Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, race & class. Vintage.
  • D’Ignazio & Klein (2020). Data Feminism.
  • Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027260
  • Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
  • Macleod, C. I., Capdevila, R., Marecek, J., Braun, V., Gavey, N., & Wilkinson, S. (2021). Celebrating 30 years of Feminism & Psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 31(3), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535211027457
  • Marecek, J. (2016). Invited Reflection. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316641090
  • Matsick, J. L., Kruk, M., Oswald, F., & Palmer, L. (2021). Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211026564
  • Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism Without Borders.
  • Persson, S., & Pownall, M. (2021). Can Open Science be a Tool to Dismantle Claims of Hardwired Brain Sex Differences? Opportunities and Challenges for Feminist Researchers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211037613
  • Pownall, M., Talbot, C. V., Henschel, A., Lautarescu, A., Lloyd, K. E., Hartmann, H., Darda, K. M., Tang, K. T. Y., Carmichael-Murphy, P., & Siegel, J. A. (2021). Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211029255

Hidden curriculum

The ‘hidden curriculum’ of higher education refers to certain unspoken ‘rules of the game’ about the norms, processes, and language of higher education that students are implicitly assumed to have but are not explicitly taught or explained (Hubbard et al, 2020; Semper and Blasco, 2018). The existence of the ‘hidden curriculum’ means that some students are not equipped to navigate the unfamiliar territory of higher education, which can have consequences for their wellbeing, sense of belonging, and success.

Inclusion

Inclusion is that individuals with different representations, identities and feelings being respected, influenced, and welcomed in a specific environment.

  • Bahlai, C., Bartlett, L., Burgio, K., Fournier, A., Keiser, C., Poisot, T., & Whitney, K. (2019). Open Science Isn’t Always Open to All Scientists. American Scientist, 107(2), 78. https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.78
  • Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society, 33(6), 985–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627
  • Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes About Gender and Science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
  • Cislak, A., Formanowicz, M., & Saguy, T. (2018). Bias against research on gender bias. Scientometrics, 115(1), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2667-0
  • Eagly, A. H., & Miller, D. I. (2016). Scientific Eminence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 899–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616663918
  • Elsherif, M. M., Middleton, S. L., Phan, J. M., Azevedo, F., Iley, B. J., Grose-Hodge, M., Tyler, S. L., Kapp, S. K., Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., Grafton-Clarke, D., Yeung, S. K., Shaw, J. J., Hartmann, H., & Dokovova, M. (2022). Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/k7a9p
  • Flaherty, C. (2020, August, 20). Something's Got to Give. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/20/womens-journal-submission-rates-continue-fall.
  • Fletcher-Watson, S., Brook, K., Hallett, S., Murray, F., & Crompton, C. J. (2021). Inclusive Practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 8(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z
  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
  • Jacobs, A. M., Büthe, T., Arjona, A., Arriola, L. R., Bellin, E., Bennett, A., Björkman, L., Bleich, E., Elkins, Z., Fairfield, T., Gaikwad, N., Greitens, S. C., Hawkesworth, M., Herrera, V., Herrera, Y. M., Johnson, K. S., Karakoç, E., Koivu, K., Kreuzer, M., … Yashar, D. J. (2021). The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications. Perspectives on Politics, 19(1), 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164
  • Crespo López, M. de los Á., Pallise Perello, C., de Ridder, J., & Labib, K. (2025). Open Science as Confused: Contradictory and Conflicting Discourses in Open Science Guidance to Researchers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zr35u_v1
  • Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
  • Le Forestier, J. M., Chan, E. W., Shephard, R., Page-Gould, E., & Chasteen, A. L. (2024). Why is concealment associated with health and wellbeing? An investigation of potential mechanisms. Social Science & Medicine, 344, 116529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116529
  • Liu, M. (2023). Whose open science are we talking about? From open science in psychology to open science in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000307
  • Macoun, A., & Miller, D. (2014). Surviving (thriving) in academia: feminist support networks and women ECRs. Journal of Gender Studies, 23(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2014.909718
  • Myers, K. R., Tham, W. Y., Yin, Y., Cohodes, N., Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C., Schiffer, P., Walsh, J. T., Lakhani, K. R., & Wang, D. (2020). Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 880–883. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0921-y
  • Phurisamban, R., Luna, E., Eyster, H. N., Chignell, S., & Koppes, M. (2025). Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just. Ecosphere, 16(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70168
  • Pownall, M., Talbot, C. V., Henschel, A., Lautarescu, A., Lloyd, K. E., Hartmann, H., Darda, K. M., Tang, K. T. Y., Carmichael-Murphy, P., & Siegel, J. A. (2021). Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211029255
  • Risner, L. E., Morin, X. K., Erenrich, E. S., Clifford, P. S., Franke, J., Hurley, I., & Schwartz, N. B. (2020). Leveraging a collaborative consortium model of mentee/mentor training to foster career progression of underrepresented postdoctoral researchers and promote institutional diversity and inclusion. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238518
  • Roberson, M. L. (2020). On supporting early-career Black scholars. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(8), 773–773. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0926-6
  • Skitka, L. J., Melton, Z. J., Mueller, A. B., & Wei, K. Y. (2020). The Gender Gap: Who Is (and Is Not) Included on Graduate-Level Syllabi in Social/Personality Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(6), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220947326
  • Zivony, A., Kardosh, R., Timmins, L., & Reggev, N. (2023). Ten simple rules for socially responsible science. PLOS Computational Biology, 19(3), e1010954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010954

Multimodal barriers to communication

The way a person communicates can influence how they are perceived and their access to opportunities in academia, including not being a nonnative English speaker, sign-language, or accents.

Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity refers to non-pathological variation in the human brain regarding movement, sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other mental functions at a group level (Singer, 2017).

  • Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Kourti, M., Jackson-Perry, D., Brownlow, C., Fletcher, K., Bendelman, D., & O’Dell, L. (2019). Doing it differently: emancipatory autism studies within a neurodiverse academic space. Disability & Society, 34(7–8), 1082–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1603102
  • Botha, M., & Gillespie-Lynch, K. (2022). Come as You Are: Examining Autistic Identity Development and the Neurodiversity Movement through an Intersectional Lens. Human Development, 66(2), 93–112. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524123
  • Brixius-Anderko, S. (2023). Nothing wrong with me. ELife, 12. CLOCKSS. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93330
  • Brown, N., & Leigh, J. (2018). Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society, 33(6), 985–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627
  • Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental Functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833
  • Constantino, C. (2018). What Can Stutterers Learn from the Neurodiversity Movement? Seminars in Speech and Language, 39(04), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667166
  • Dwyer, P. (2022). The Neurodiversity Approach(es): What Are They and What Do They Mean for Researchers? Human Development, 66(2), 73–92. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523723
  • Elsherif, M. M., Middleton, S. L., Phan, J. M., Azevedo, F., Iley, B. J., Grose-Hodge, M., Tyler, S. L., Kapp, S. K., Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., Grafton-Clarke, D., Yeung, S. K., Shaw, J. J., Hartmann, H., & Dokovova, M. (2022). Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/k7a9p
  • Fletcher-Watson, S., Brook, K., Hallett, S., Murray, F., & Crompton, C. J. (2021). Inclusive Practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 8(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z
  • Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., Kalandadze, T., Yeung, S. K., Azevedo, F., Iley, B., Phan, J. M., Ramji, A. V., Shaw, J. J., Zaneva, M., Dokovova, M., Hartmann, H., Kapp, S. K., Warrington, K. L., & Elsherif, M. M. (2023). Opening up understanding of neurodiversity: A call for applying participatory and open scholarship practices. The Cognitive Psychology Bulletin, 1(8), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscog.2023.1.8.23
  • Hamilton, L. G., & Petty, S. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290
  • Manalili, M. A. R., Pearson, A., Sulik, J., Creechan, L., Elsherif, M., Murkumbi, I., Azevedo, F., Bonnen, K. L., Kim, J. S., Kording, K., Lee, J. J., Obscura, M., Kapp, S. K., Röer, J. P., & Morstead, T. (2023). From Puzzle to Progress: How Engaging With Neurodiversity Can Improve Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, 47(2). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13255
  • Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem.’ Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
  • Powell, K. (2021). Academia’s ableist culture laid bare. Nature, 598(7879), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02695-0
  • Sohn, E. (2022). The conference challenges faced by scientists who stutter. Nature, 607(7917), 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01829-2
  • Victor, S. E., Devendorf, A. R., Lewis, S. P., Rottenberg, J., Muehlenkamp, J. J., Stage, D. L., & Miller, R. H. (2022). Only Human: Mental-Health Difficulties Among Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychology Faculty and Trainees. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1576–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211071079
  • Wong, L. (2023). Five things I wish academia understood about my social anxiety. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00830-7
  • Yerbury, J. J., & Yerbury, R. M. (2021). Disabled in academia: to be or not to be, that is the question. Trends in Neurosciences, 44(7), 507–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2021.04.004
  • To add: https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/intljofdissocjus.5.3.0002

Objectivity in Research

Objectivity in scientific research refers to a truth or independent reality exists outside of any observation such that personal beliefs, interests, judgements, bias, bias or opinions should not affect the independent reality or truth. Here we discuss that readers understand that being objective in research is a myth.

Racism in science

Addresses the legacy and continuing impact of racism in research contexts, from biased study designs to the underrepresentation and marginalization of researchers of color today. Encourages critical examination of how racial biases can affect who does science, what topics are studied, and how results are interpreted.

  • Aly, M., Colunga, E., Crockett, M. J., Goldrick, M., Gomez, P., Kung, F. Y. H., McKee, P. C., Pérez, M., Stilwell, S. M., & Diekman, A. B. (2023). Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3546–3565. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461
  • Bailey, A. (2017). Tracking Privilege‐Preserving Epistemic Pushback in Feminist and Critical Race Philosophy Classes. Hypatia, 32(4), 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12354
  • Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905
  • Buchanan, N. T., & Wiklund, L. O. (2021). Intersectionality Research in Psychological Science: Resisting the Tendency to Disconnect, Dilute, and Depoliticize. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00748-y
  • Cartwright, N. (2021). Rigour versus the need for evidential diversity. Synthese, 199(5–6), 13095–13119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03368-1
  • Dupree, C. H., & Boykin, C. M. (2021). Racial Inequality in Academia: Systemic Origins, Modern Challenges, and Policy Recommendations. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220984183
  • Dupree, C. H., & Kraus, M. W. (2021). Psychological Science Is Not Race Neutral. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979820
  • Fryberg, S. A., & Eason, A. E. (2017). Making the Invisible Visible: Acts of Commission and Omission. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417720959
  • Gómez, J. M. (2022). Epistemic Oppression, Construct Validity, and Scientific Rigor: Commentary on Woo et al. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211072830
  • Gosztyla, M. L., Kwong, L., Murray, N. A., Williams, C. E., Behnke, N., Curry, P., Corbett, K. D., DSouza, K. N., Gala de Pablo, J., Gicobi, J., Javidnia, M., Lotay, N., Prescott, S. M., Quinn, J. P., Rivera, Z. M. G., Smith, M. A., Tang, K. T. Y., Venkat, A., & Yamoah, M. A. (2021). Responses to 10 common criticisms of anti-racism action in STEMM. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(7), e1009141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009141
  • Hodson, G. (2021). Pushing Back Against the Microaggression Pushback in Academic Psychology: Reflections on a Concept-Creep Paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(5), 932–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621991863
  • Hodson, G. (2022). Fighting over who dictates the nature of prejudice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x21000625
  • Holmes, O., Smith, A. N., Loyd, D. L., & Gutiérrez, A. S. (2022). Scholars of color explore bias in academe: Calling in allies and sharing affirmations for us by us. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 173, 104204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104204
  • Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2003). Derogating the Victim: The Interpersonal Consequences of Blaming Events on Discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302030063001
  • Kim, T. J., & Steinhilper, E. (2025). On the limits of antiracism: how antiracist opposition is connected to racism denial in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2025.2508392
  • Matias, J. N., Lewis, N. A., & Hope, E. C. (2022). US universities are not succeeding in diversifying faculty. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(12), 1606–1608. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01495-4
  • McIntosh, P. (1989, July–August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom
  • Pickler, R. H., Munro, C. L., & Likis, F. E. (2020). Addressing racism in editorial practices. Nurse Author & Editor, 30(4), 38–40. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.11
  • Roberts, S. (2022). Dealing with Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xk4yu
  • Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on psychological science, 15(6), 1295-1309. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691620927709
  • Roberts, S. O., & Mortenson, E. (2022). Challenging the White = Neutral Framework in Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(3), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221077117
  • Roberts, S. O., & Rizzo, M. T. (2021). The psychology of American racism. American Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642
  • Rudd, L. F., Allred, S., Bright Ross, J. G., Hare, D., Nkomo, M. N., Shanker, K., Allen, T., Biggs, D., Dickman, A., Dunaway, M., Ghosh, R., González, N. T., Kepe, T., Mbizah, M. M., Middleton, S. L., Oommen, M. A., Paudel, K., Sillero-Zubiri, C., & Dávalos, A. (2021). Overcoming racism in the twin spheres of conservation science and practice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1962). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1871
  • Saini, A. (2019). Superior: the return of race science. Beacon Press.
  • Salter, P., & Adams, G. (2013). Toward a Critical Race Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 781–793. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12068
  • Salter, P. S., Adams, G., & Perez, M. J. (2017). Racism in the Structure of Everyday Worlds: A Cultural-Psychological Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417724239
  • Thompson, A. (1997). For: Anti-Racist Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(1), 7–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1180053
  • Torrez, B., Hudson, S. T. J., & Dupree, C. H. (2022). Racial Equity in Social Psychological Science: A Guide for Scholars, Institutions, and the Field. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7eavc
  • West, C. (2001). A genealogy of modern racism. In P. Essed & D. T. Goldberg (Eds.), Race critical theories: Text and context (pp. 90–112). Wiley-Blackwell
  • West, K., Greenland, K., van Laar, C., & Barnoth, D. (2022). It’s only discrimination when they do it to us: When White men use ingroup‐serving double standards in definitional boundaries of discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 735–747. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2849
  • Wetts, R., & Willer, R. (2022). Antiracism and its Discontents: Opposition to Antiracism is a Widespread and Politically Influential Racial Ideology among White Americans. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xvcf2
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier (go to "Scientific Racism” section)

Religion and culture

One’s degree of privilege/marginalisation based on religion or culture will vary depending on the country or region that people reside in.

  • Cahyo Adi Kistoro, H., Kartowagiran, B., Latipah, E., Naim, N., Putranta, H., & Minggele, D. (2020). Islamophobia in education: perceptions on the use of veil/niqab in higher education. Indonesian Journal of Islam and Muslim Societies, 10(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.18326/ijims.v10i2.227-246
  • Kuper, A. (2022). Reflections on addressing antisemitism in a Canadian faculty of medicine. Canadian Medical Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.76086
  • Morgan, J., McDonagh, C., & Acton, T. (2023). Outsider status, and racialised habitus: the experiences of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller students in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 44(3), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2167702
  • Moustafa, K. (2023). Preserve cultural diversity in author names. Nature, 618(7964), 238–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01852-x
  • Pidgeon, M. (2016). More Than a Checklist: Meaningful Indigenous Inclusion in Higher Education. Social Inclusion, 4(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i1.436
  • Halabi, R. (2022). Palestinian students in an Israeli-Hebrew University: obstacles and challenges. Higher Education, 86(3), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00920-x
  • Werner Washburne, M., Trejo, J., Zambrana, R. E., Zavala, M. E., Martinic, A., Riestra, A., Delgado, T., Edwards, S., Escobar, T., Jamison-McClung, D., Vazquez, M., Vera, I., Guerra, M., Marinez, D. I., Gonzalez, E., & Rodriguez, R. L. (2023). Early career Latinas in STEM: Challenges and solutions. Cell, 186(23), 4985–4991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.10.016

Research assessment, proposals, and reforms

Examines how researchers and institutions are evaluated and efforts to reform these systems to better align with open and responsible science. INSERT DESCRIPTION

  • Dienlin, T., Johannes, N., Bowman, N. D., Masur, P. K., Engesser, S., Kümpel, A. S., Lukito, J., Bier, L. M., Zhang, R., Johnson, B. K., Huskey, R., Schneider, F. M., Breuer, J., Parry, D. A., Vermeulen, I., Fisher, J. T., Banks, J., Weber, R., Ellis, D. A., … de Vreese, C. (2020). An Agenda for Open Science in Communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Schneider, J. W., & Sainte-Marie, M. (2022). Ungendered writing: Writing styles are unlikely to account for gender differences in funding rates in the natural and technical sciences. Journal of Informetrics, 16(4), 101332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101332
  • Hosseini, M., Senabre Hidalgo, E., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Güttinger, S., & Penders, B. (2022). Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research, 31(5), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625
  • Knibbe, M., de Rijcke, S., & Penders, B. (2025). Care for the soul of science: Equity and virtue in reform and reformation. Cultures of Science, 8(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083251329632
  • Labib, K., & Evans, N. (2021). Gender, diversity, and the responsible assessment of researchers. PLOS Biology, 19(4), e3001036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001036
  • Ross-Hellauer, Tony & Aubert Bonn, Noémie & Horbach, Serge P. J. M., (2023). Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: Interpretative flexibility and hidden criteria. SocArXiv https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/e5uyv_v1.html
  • Ross-Hellauer, T., Aubert Bonn, N., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: evaluative flexibility and hidden criteria in promotion processes at research institutes. Research Evaluation, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae055
  • Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i9.5381
  • Ulpts, S., Bartscherer, S. F., Field, S. M., & Penders, B. (2025). The social replication of replication: Moving replication through epistemic communities. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pqc4v_v1
  • Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Mandeville, C., Somerwill, L., Kragh, G., & Haklay, M. (2024). Opening science to society: how to progress societal engagement into (open) science policies. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231309

Sexuality & Gender

Sexuality refers to the various aspects of an individual’s being related to their sexual feelings, thoughts, attractions and behaviour. We use “LGBTQ+” as an inclusive term to refer to all sexual identities and orientations which are not heterosexual. This includes but is not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, queer, and questioning[ap].

  • Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933
  • Heffernan, T. (2021). Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: a literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888075
  • How scientific conferences are responding to abortion bans and anti-LGBTQ+ laws. (2023). [dataset]. In AAAS Articles DO Group. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj3365
  • Crespo López, M. de los Á., Pallise Perello, C., de Ridder, J., & Labib, K. (2025). Open Science as Confused: Contradictory and Conflicting Discourses in Open Science Guidance to Researchers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zr35u_v1
  • Le Forestier, J. M., Page-Gould, E., & Chasteen, A. (2024). Identity Concealment May Discourage Health-Seeking Behaviors: Evidence From Sexual-Minority Men During the 2022 Global Mpox Outbreak. Psychological Science, 35(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231217416
  • Zebracki, M., & Greatrick, A. (2022). Inclusive LGBTQ+ fieldwork: Advancing spaces of belonging and safety. Area, 54(4), 551–557. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12828

Socially Responsible Research

Research agendas need to be balanced with societal needs and ethical imperatives.

Societal acceptance of appearance

How we appear to others can contribute to privilege. Several appearances include facial features, hair texture, skin conditions and body size.

  • Koval, C. Z., & Rosette, A. S. (2020). The Natural Hair Bias in Job Recruitment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620937937
  • Rahbari, L. (2019). Beauty or the Beast? University Academics’ Perceptions of Women’s Physical Appearance and Academic Achievements. Journal of International Women's Studies, 20(2), 309-323. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol20/iss2/21
  • Shahani-Denning, C. (2003). Physical attractiveness bias in hiring: What is beautiful is good. Hofstra Horizon, 14-17.
  • Shahani-Denning, C., Andreoli, N., Snyder, J., Tevet, R., & Fox, S. (2011). The effects of physical attractiveness and gender on selection decisions: An experimental study. International Journal of Management, 28(4), 16-23.

Structures and incentives in academia

The academic system (promotion criteria, funding structures, competition for limited jobs) can incentivize quantity of publications, impact factor chasing, and other behaviors that conflict with openness and rigor.

  • Andersen, J. P., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). If AI is an accelerator, will research need speed limits? Research Professional News (Research Europe). https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-views-of-europe-2024-12-if-ai-is-an-accelerator-will-research-need-speed-limits/
  • Azevedo, F., Liu, M., Pennington, C. R., Pownall, M., Evans, T. R., Parsons, S., Elsherif, M. M., Micheli, L., & Westwood, S. J. (2022). Towards a culture of open scholarship: the role of pedagogical communities. BMC Research Notes, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05944-1
  • Baker, M. (2016). How quality control could save your science. Nature, 529(7587), 456–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/529456a
  • Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M., & Dirnagl, U. (2015). Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature, 525(7567), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/525025a
  • Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115
  • Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047
  • Corker, K. S. (2017). Why a Focus on Eminence is Misguided: A Call to Return to Basic Scientific Values. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yqfrd
  • Dames, H., Musfeld, P., Popov, V., Oberauer, K., & Frischkorn, G. T. (2023). Responsible Research Assessment Should Prioritize Theory Development and Testing Over Ticking Open Science Boxes. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ad74m
  • Davies, S. W., Putnam, H. M., Ainsworth, T., Baum, J. K., Bove, C. B., Crosby, S. C., Côté, I. M., Duplouy, A., Fulweiler, R. W., Griffin, A. J., Hanley, T. C., Hill, T., Humanes, A., Mangubhai, S., Metaxas, A., Parker, L. M., Rivera, H. E., Silbiger, N. J., Smith, N. S., … Bates, A. E. (2021). Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLOS Biology, 19(6), e3001282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282
  • Devezer, B., & Penders, B. (2023). Scientific reform, citation politics and the bureaucracy of oblivion. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 857–859. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00274
  • Diener, E. (2016). Improving Departments of Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 909–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662865
  • Dienes, Z. (2023). The credibility crisis and democratic governance: how to reform university governance to be compatible with the nature of science. Royal Society Open Science, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220808
  • Drude, N., Martinez-Gamboa, L., Haven, T., Holman, C., Holst, M., Kniffert, S., McCann, S., Rackoll, T., Schulz, R., & Weschke, S. (2022). Finding the best fit for improving reproducibility: reflections from the QUEST Center for Responsible Research. BMC Research Notes, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06108-x
  • Ebersole, C. R., Axt, J. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right. PLOS Biology, 14(5), e1002460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460
  • Elliott, S., & Sterner, B. (2025). How Open Science organizations generate epistemic oppression. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00674-0
  • Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
  • Feist, G. J. (2016). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616660535
  • Fernández Pinto, M. (2020). Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.588331
  • Ferreira, F. (2017). Fernanda Ferreira -- Fame: I’m Skeptical (2017). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6zb4f
  • Flier, J. (2017). Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility. Nature, 549(7671), 133–133. https://doi.org/10.1038/549133a
  • Foss, D. J. (2016). Eminence and Omniscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 913–916. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662440
  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Rewarding Research Transparency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(11), 953–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.07.002
  • Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0217931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931
  • Haven, T. L., de Goede, M. E. E., Tijdink, J. K., & Oort, F. J. (2019). Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6
  • Haven, T., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., & Tijdink, J. (2020). Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3017–3036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8
  • Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599
  • Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Breit, E., Halffman, W., & Mamelund, S.-E. (2020). On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1595–1623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8
  • Horbach, S., Hepkema, W., & Halffman, W. (2020). Hundreds of journals’ editorial practices captured in database. Nature, 582(7810), 32–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01628-7
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Tijdink, J. K., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Partial lottery can make grant allocation more fair, more efficient, and more diverse. Science and Public Policy, 49(4), 580–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac009
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Tijdink, J. K., & Bouter, L. (2022). Research funders should be more transparent: a plea for open applications. Royal Society Open Science, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220750
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Sørensen, M. P., Allum, N., & Reid, A.-K. (2023). Disentangling the local context—imagined communities and researchers’ sense of belonging. Science and Public Policy, 50(4), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad017
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Fishberg, R., Ulpts, S., & Degn, L. (2024). Thou Shalt Not! – How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2414500
  • Horbach, S. P. J. M., Cole, N. L., Kopeinik, S., Leitner, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., & Tijdink, J. (2025). How to get there from here? Barriers and enablers on the road towards reproducibility in research [Manuscript]. OSF. https://osf.io/n28sg/
  • Hostler, T. J. (2024). Open Research Reforms and the Capitalist University: Areas of Opposition and Alignment. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.121383
  • Hostler, T. (2024). Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022). Meta-Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.3764
  • Innes-Ker, Å. (2017). The Focus on Fame distorts Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vyr3e
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Thombs, B. D. (2019). A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 49(9). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13151
  • Crespo López, M. de los Á., Pallise Perello, C., de Ridder, J., & Labib, K. (2025). Open Science as Confused: Contradictory and Conflicting Discourses in Open Science Guidance to Researchers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/zr35u_v1
  • Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F., & Livan, G. (2019). Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nature Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4
  • Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
  • Matosin, N., Frank, E., Engel, M., Lum, J. S., & Newell, K. A. (2014). Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 7(2), 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.015123
  • McIntosh, B., Ichikawa, K., & Nelson, N. C. (2025). Adversarial reanalysis and the challenge of open data in regulatory science. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jfbr8_v1
  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848
  • Morgan, A. C., Economou, D. J., Way, S. F., & Clauset, A. (2018). Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4
  • Naudet, F., Ioannidis, J., Miedema, F., Cristea, I. A., Goodman, S. N., & Moher, D. (2018). Six principles for assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90753/
  • Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). Let’s PublishFewerPapers. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 291–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2012.705245
  • Penders, B. (2022). Process and Bureaucracy: Scientific Reform as Civilisation. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 42(4), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676221126388
  • Phurisamban, R., Luna, E., Eyster, H. N., Chignell, S., & Koppes, M. (2025). Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just. Ecosphere, 16(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70168
  • Pickett, C. (2017). Let’s Look at the Big Picture: A System-Level Approach to Assessing Scholarly Merit. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tv6nb
  • Rahal, R.-M., Fiedler, S., Adetula, A., Berntsson, R. P.-A., Dirnagl, U., Feld, G. B., Fiebach, C. J., Himi, S. A., Horner, A. J., Lonsdorf, T. B., Schönbrodt, F., Silan, M. A. A., Wenzler, M., & Azevedo, F. (2023). Quality research needs good working conditions. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(2), 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01508-2
  • Reyes Elizondo, A., & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2024). Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3
  • Roediger III, H. L. (2016). Varieties of fame in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 882-887. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1745691616662457
  • Ross-Hellauer, T., Aubert Bonn, N., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: evaluative flexibility and hidden criteria in promotion processes at research institutes. Research Evaluation, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae055
  • Ruscio, J. (2016). Taking Advantage of Citation Measures of Scholarly Impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 905–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616664436
  • Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5381/4110
  • Schneider, J. W., Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Aagaard, K. (2021). Stop blaming external factors: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information, 60(3), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211018123
  • Shiota, M. N. (2017). PPS submission “Am I Famous Yet” - Shiota. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4kwuq
  • Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving Credit Where Credit’s Due. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 888–892. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616660155
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2016). “Am I Famous Yet?” Judging Scholarly Merit in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 877–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616661777
  • Tressoldi, P. E., Giofré, D., Sella, F., & Cumming, G. (2013). High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e56180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056180
  • Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Gigerenzer, G., Holmes, W. R., Lewandowsky, S., Matzke, D., Murphy, M. C., Musslick, S., Popov, V., Roskies, A. L., ter Schure, J., & Teodorescu, A. R. (2025). The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
  • Ulpts, S., Bartscherer, S. F., Penders, B., & Nelson, N. (2025). Epistemic oligarchies: capture and concentration through science reform. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17136864
  • van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. B. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516–R517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039
  • Vazire, S. (2017). Against Eminence. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/djbcw
  • Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023). Listing quality: Chinese journal lists in incoherent valuation regimes. Science and Public Policy, 51(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad052
  • Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2025). The Journal Attention Cycle: Indicators as Assets in the Chinese Scientific Publishing Economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 51(1), 218–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439251322530
  • Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Mandeville, C., Somerwill, L., Kragh, G., & Haklay, M. (2024). Opening science to society: how to progress societal engagement into (open) science policies. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231309
JUST-OS