SIPS 2025 Budapest

Because many strong theories make clear predictions, in principle there may be no advantage to registering such a theory’s predictions in advance of data collection (Szollosi & Donkin, 2021). Some researchers have therefore argued that preregistration is not worthwhile (Szollosi et al., 2020). Yet psychologists have not prioritized the development of strong theories, or even the use of existing ones. Can we do something about this? I will argue that preregistration is, ironically, an important part of the answer. Strong theories are underappreciated in part because of the scarcity of both the skills and the time required to determine that a theory is strong and makes clear predictions. But because everyone recognizes the value of correct predictions, preregistration can help strong theories rise to the top. However, additional practices such as head-to-head comparisons of competing theories (Dutilh et al., 2018) may also be necessary.

Some publishers perpetuate practices that conflict with the interests of scholars. High publication-related fees are one example. An emphasis on crude metrics such as impact factor rather than quality evaluation of journal practices is another. We will describe initiatives that provide alternatives and work on actions to support these. Peer Community Ins perform all the intellectual work of a journal in a way that is free for authors and readers; relevant communities including PCI Registered Reports and PCI Psychology. In the metascience area, MetaROR.org provides peer reviews of preprints (which can optionally be submitted to journals). The Free Journal Network curates scholar-controlled diamond OA (free to publish in and free to read) journals, provides relevant advice, and can support editors interested in “flipping” to this model. In this hackathon, we will develop strategies to facilitate the movement of psychologists and psychology journals towards these publication practices.