Open science initiatives have gained traction in recent years. However, open peer-review practices, i.e., reforms that (i) modify the identifiability of stakeholders and (ii) establish channels for the open communication of information between stakeholders, have seen very little adoption in economics. In this paper, we explore the feasibility and desirability of such reforms. We present insights derived from survey data documenting the attitudes of 802 experimental/behavioral economists, a conceptual framework, a literature review, and cross-disciplinary data on current journal practices. On (i), most respondents support preserving anonymity for referees, but views about anonymity for authors and associate editors are mixed. On (ii), most respondents are open to publishing anonymized referee reports, sharing reports between referees, and allowing authors to appeal editorial decisions. Active reviewers, editors, and respondents from the US/Canada are generally less open to transparency reforms.

The world of scholarship and science is currently in disarray and under severe threat. The Institutes for Advanced Study (IAS) have always been internationally recognized symbols for academic freedom and pioneering studies of the highest standards. In the last decades, there has been a remarkable proliferation of these centres, to where they are now a global phenomenon. At their root, these institutes all aim for curiosity-based research and the formation of transnational communities engaged in unobstructed scholarship and science. Alongside the worldwide development of the IAS, there has also arisen a parallel movement, commonly known as Open Science. Seen by many academics, institutions, funding bodies and governments as a much-needed transition in university systems, Open Science implies a significant change in academia. Commencing as an initiative to stimulate discussion on open access publishing, shared data-use, academic recognition and rewards, and the legitimacy of impact factors and university rankings, Open Science increasingly also centres on connecting research and education, and science and society. Both in the IAS, as well as in Open Science, there are important developments with regard to transdisciplinary research and education. As of yet, however, a connection between the ideals and aims of the IAS and Open Science has not explicitly been made in the literature. This article aims to open up a dialogue between these driving academic forces, so that they can face the complex challenges in the world together, and work in unison and synergy towards new academic identities.

This article explores an initiative aimed at fostering a culture of electronic music and sound arts in Peru, focusing on the Open Science project, Circuito Abierto (2022–2024). It explores how Circuito Abierto, an annual artistic residency rooted in Open Science culture and organised by the Laboratorio de Música Electroacústica y Arte Sonoro at the Universidad Nacional de Música (UNM, formerly the Conservatorio Nacional de Música), challenged traditional and conservative educational structures within Peru’s academic landscape. The project promoted an open, collaborative approach to music creation, aimed at bridging the gap between academic and popular music scenes in the education of electronic music. Circuito Abierto may serve as a case study for addressing broader historical challenges in Peruvian music education, particularly with regard to music technology and experimental electronic sound art practices.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a powerful and flexible modeling framework for testing complex relationships among observed and latent variables. However, its methodological complexity and analytical flexibility also increase the risk of questionable research practices (QRPs), especially in fields like applied linguistics, where training in advanced statistics may be limited. This article synthesizes the literature on QRPs and applies it to SEM by identifying seven categories of problematic practices: not checking assumptions, not validating a measurement model, not testing competing models, not sufficiently justifying modeling decisions, relying on post hoc model modification, overemphasizing global fit indices, and incomplete or nontransparent reporting. Each practice is described with examples and linked to broader issues in research ethics and transparency. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for improving the credibility and reproducibility of SEM research, emphasizing the integration of best practices with the principles of open science.

Adapting to a global urban future requires diverse, long-term perspectives on urbanism. URBank supports this by bringing together global deep-time urban datasets in a modern open-science computing platform. Its design eschews checklist definitions of cities, representing the variability of past urbanism and enabling systematic comparative spatiotemporal research.

Ensuring universal access to scientific research and upholding the principles of keeping data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is of paramount importance to the democratization of science. However, upholding these principles becomes increasingly complex with the increasing scope of data collection, the more different types of data we collect (e.g., survey, text, or institutional and country-level macro data), and the more research teams are involved in data collection. In the domain of democracy research, scientists across Europe are therefore joining forces to launch the research infrastructure monitoring electoral democracy (MEDem), which aims to establish itself as an open platform where the fragmented crowd of researchers in the various research fields can coordinate and develop common standards for data collection both retrospectively as well as prospectively to make their data interoperable, and (comparative) democracy research more productive. Moreover, MEDem will help make democracy research data and findings accessible to the general public (e.g., citizens, journalists, and policymakers).

In this article, we present the Pangloss Collection, a collection of digital corpora of (mostly) endangered or underdocumented languages, developed in France since the 1990s in the context of a global realization of the considerable potential of digital technologies. The Pangloss Collection currently hosts 1,180 hours of audio and video recordings of about 200 languages. These materials are archived for the long-term using a suite of French public services for digital humanities. The Pangloss Collection can be freely accessed through a bilingual English-French website that was reshaped in 2021 to offer a general-audience interface mode and a professional interface mode (see https://pangloss.cnrs.fr/).

Computational archaeology and theoretical archaeology often appear as separate domains within the field, each driven by distinct methodologies and objectives. Through the lens of discussions held at the 2021 Central European Theoretical Archaeology Group (CE-TAG) conference and analysis of a follow-up questionnaire, this study explores the current trends and intersections between these areas to identify opportunities for meaningful integration. We highlight key challenges, such as the theoretical underpinnings of computer-assisted methods, the epistemological implications of data-driven approaches, and the need for open-science practices. Our findings emphasize the importance of mutual understanding and collaboration, particularly in research and education, in bridging divides and enhancing the synergy between these domains. By addressing shared concerns such as bias, scalability, and methodological transparency, we propose a framework for fostering innovation in both computational and theoretical archaeology while maintaining their shared goal of interpreting the human past.

The vast presence of populism in contemporary political discourse has introduced a narrative steeped in nostalgia, evoking images of a revered national past and delineating a stark division between the ‘authentic us’ and the ‘alien them’. While these messages resonate with a substantial portion of citizens, they concurrently foster identity-driven animosity and derogation. In a pre-registered experiment in the Netherlands (with data collected between January and March 2023), we distinguish the influence of nostalgic narratives and scapegoating on societal sentiments, revealing their pivotal role in exacerbating current levels of polarization. Our findings underscore the potential of nostalgic narratives to shape affective sentiments towards ideological and social in-groups, while also influencing sentiments towards out-groups. Messages featuring scapegoats were found to intensify positive sentiment towards in-groups, while simultaneously diminishing positive sentiment towards out-groups. This research underscores a crucial mechanism underpinning the ebb and flow of identity-based sentiments. The results indicate that nostalgic discourse, particularly when intertwined with scapegoating, can serve as a catalyst for the intensification of in-group affinity and the exacerbation of out-group aversion. In essence, our study underscores the far-reaching implications of nostalgic narratives in perpetuating societal animosity and polarization and sheds light on a critical facet of contemporary political discourse.

The studies in Shafir (1993, Memory & Cognition 21, 546–556) examined the impact of decision frames (choosing vs. rejecting) on decision-making. Our replication—Chandrashekar et al. (2021, Judgment and Decision Making 16, 36–56)—revealed mixed results with only partial support for the original findings, concluding a successful replication of only 2 out of 8 scenarios. Our data from an exploratory extension suggested a pattern in support of an alternative theoretical mechanism aligning with Wedell’s (1997, Memory & Cognition 25, 873–887) accentuation hypothesis. Shafir and Cheek’s (2024) commentary criticized our approach to replications, and the value and importance of direct close replications overall, and shared their views regarding the theory and scope of the phenomenon, with new information about what they consider to be needed steps to empirically test the phenomenon. In our response, we clarify misunderstandings and address empirical findings shared in the commentary. We discuss and defend the value and importance of direct replications and the necessity for full transparency regarding the theoretical assumptions and the process of empirical investigations. Finally, we call for the implementation of open science more broadly, in conducting more direct close replications, sharing of all protocols, materials, data, and code, and implementing outcome-blind reviewing and Registered Reports. These would allow for stronger theoretical and empirical foundations, and a more credible and robust psychological science.

Open science is good for both epistemic and social reasons, but in nonobvious ways, it can have detrimental epistemic side effects. Drawing on case studies and the social epistemology of science, I show how practices intended to increase transparency, communication, and information sharing in science can backfire. We should not reject Open Science, just implement it carefully. I argue that we can do so by treating openness as a governing value in science, and thus, that our pursuit of openness needs to be balanced against our pursuit of the whole scheme of values that govern science.