Research Transparency Statement

Open Science Statement of the OS|TUC

"We embrace the values of openness and transparency in science. We believe that such research practices increase the informational value and impact of our research, as the data can be reanalyzed and synthesized in future studies. Furthermore, they increase the credibility of the results, as independent verification of the findings is possible.

Here, we express a voluntary commitment about how we will conduct our research. Please note that to every guideline there can be justified exceptions. But whenever we deviate from one of the guidelines, we give an explicit justification for why we do so (e.g., in the manuscript, or in the README file of the project repository)."

http://www.researchtransparency.org/

Own Research

1. Preregistration: Whenever possible and sensible, we preregister our main hypotheses on a reliable platform (e.g. Open Science Framework, as.predicted.org). A pre-registration consists of a justifiable a priori power analysis or a strong evidence threshold (e.g., if a sequential Bayes factor design is implemented), the hypotheses, design, data collection stopping rule, and planned analyses.
2. Open data: Whenever possible, we publish all data which are necessary to reproduce the reported results on a reliable repository (such as the Open Science Framework).
3. Open Analysis: For every publication we aim to publish reproducible data analysis scripts, and, where applicable, reproducible code for simulations or computational modeling.
4. Open Reporting:
   (a) We provide (and follow) the “21-word solution” in every empirical publication: “We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.” If necessary, this statement is adjusted to ensure that it is accurate (Simmons et al., 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588).
   (b) If the first-authored empirical publication includes a confirmatory study, the “21-word solution” is extended by a statement reporting any related preregistration.

   Reviewers

5. As reviewers, we add the “standard reviewer disclosure request”, if necessary (https://osf.io/hadz3/#!). It asks the authors to add a statement to the paper confirming whether, for all experiments, they have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and how they determined their sample sizes.
6. As reviewers, we ask for Open Data (or a justification why it is not possible).

   Supervision of Dissertations

7. As supervisors we put particular emphasis on the propagation of methods that enhance the informational value and the replicability of studies. From the very beginning of a supervisor-PhD student relationship we discuss these requirements explicitly.
8. From students, we expect that, whenever possible, a study outline is provided ahead of data collection (or analysis, if available datasets are used), for instance in the form of an exposé, preregistration, or ethics proposal.
9. From students, we expect that they provide Open Data, Open Materials and reproducible scripts to the supervisor (they do not have to be public yet).
10. If qualification projects result in publications, we expect that they follow points 1 to 4.
11. The grading of the final thesis is independent of the studies’ statistical significance. Publications are aspired; however, a successful publication is not a criterion for passing or grading.

    Service to the field

12. As members of committees (e.g., tenure track, appointment committees, teaching, professional societies) or editorial boards, we will promote the values of open science.

    References

    This statement is a derative of the Statements by OSIP - Open Science Initiative of the Faculty of Psychology of Technische Universität Dresden (2019). OSIP Research Transparency Statement. Retrieved from https://tu-dresden.de/mn/psychologie/die-fakultaet/open-science/osip-research-transparency-statement
    and
    Schönbrodt, F. D., Maier, M., Heene, M., & Zehetleitner, M. (2015). Commitment to research transparency and the logo by Tobias Kächele, Lena Schiestel and Felix Schönbrodt. Retrieved from http://www.researchtransparency.org

Zeichnende des Statements

Prof. Dr. Anja Strobel (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 03.06.2021
Prof. Dr. Frank Asbrock (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 03.06.2021
M.Sc.Psych. Johanna Bruchmann (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 03.06.2021
M.A. Claas Pollmanns (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 03.06.2021
Jun.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Bischof (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 07.10.2022
M.Sc.Psych. Inga Hoff (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.01.2023
M.Sc.Psych. Sarah Mandl (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.01.2023
Dr. Magdalena Reineboth (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.01.2023
Dr. Julia Grass (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.01.2023
PD Dr. Diana Armbruster (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.01.2023
M.Sc.Psych. Kathrin Fucke (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 15.05.2023                                                                                      Prof. Dr. Alexandra Bendixen (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 11.10.2023                                                                                        Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Einhäuser-Treyer (Technische Universität Chemnitz) - 19.10.2023

Die Zeichnenden des Statements verpflichten sich dazu, Open Science in der Lehre und Forschung zu praktizieren und die Werte des Research Transparency Statements immer dann, wenn es möglich ist, zu vertreten.
Bei Interesse an der Unterzeichnung des Statements senden Sie bitte eine E-Mail an die Initiative mit einem kurzen Statement zu Ihrer Motivation und ob/wie Sie bereits bestimmte Maßnahmen implementieren oder unterstützen.
Des Weiteren ist die Angabe des vollständigen Namens und Ihrer Forschungseinrichtung erforderlich.
Eine Unterzeichnung ist nur für Mitglieder der Technischen Universität Chemnitz möglich.