Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force Report

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission focuses on bringing together scholars who want to improve methods and practices in psychological science. The organization reaffirmed in June 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities” (Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, 2020).

The purpose of the Global Engagement Task Force, started in January 2020, was to explore suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Conference, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around inclusion and access for scholars from regions outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe (henceforth described as “geographically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task force members’ countries of residence. This report outlines several suggestions, specifically around building partnerships with geographically diverse open science organizations; increasing SIPS presence at other, more local events; diversifying remote events; considering geographically diverse annual conference locations; improving membership and financial resources; and surveying open science practitioners from geographically diverse regions. Our recommendations are summarized below, though we urge interested parties to delve deeper into specific sections.

• Building Partnerships: We recommend SIPS invest time and resources into building relationships with regional and field-specific organizations who have also been working to engage in open science practices, and support initiatives to expand open access practices. SIPS should also encourage Collabra leadership to support efforts to increase the visibility of research and scholars from geographically diverse regions.

• SIPS Presence at Other Events: We recommend SIPS leadership promote and attend in-person meetups, workshops, and hackathons run by geographically diverse hosts, in English and other languages.

• Diversifying Remote Events: We recommend SIPS promote and attend online events run by geographically diverse hosts, in English and other languages.

• Geographically Diverse Annual Conference Locations: We recommend SIPS hold the annual conference in geographically diverse regions, including those traditionally labeled as “Global South,” “Low and Middle Income Countries,” and countries “with developing research systems.”¹

• Membership and Financial Resources: We recommend SIPS leadership explore and expand options to support open science efforts for scholars from geographically diverse regions, including adding reduced cost membership tiers, reworking language around hardship waivers, providing more travel scholarships for scholars to attend workshops and conferences, and providing mini-grants to open science-related endeavors across education, research, and service.

• Surveying Open Science Practitioners: We recommend SIPS leadership regularly conduct and support surveys to understand reasons surrounding why people join and/or leave SIPS, and the types and rate of adoption of open science practices among SIPS members and psychologists across the globe. It will also be beneficial to use qualitative methods when a richer understanding of perspectives is desired.

We do not expect SIPS to enact every single one of these suggestions; any action should of course take into account the organization’s values and available resources. Regardless of the specific response to this report, however, it will be important for scholars from geographically diverse regions to be intentionally sought out as collaborators and leaders (Saab et al., 2020), whose perspectives on how psychological science can improve are valuable but often overlooked. Historically, our field has not valued researchers or participants who fall outside mainstream perspectives (Bulhan, 2015; Clark, 1989; Ryan, 1976), and the impacts of this practice are still felt today, inside and outside of academia.

It will also be important for the Executive Committee (and SIPS membership, more broadly) to understand and respect that open science practices may look drastically different, depending on geographic region and research area. For example, some scholars may be more interested in qualitative research or modeling than in experiments, and it might even be the case that psychology as a discipline is not formally recognized as a science in some geographic regions. Scholars from geographically diverse regions may engage primarily in research in the field rather than in labs. Epistemological diversity is not necessarily related to geographic diversity, but there are a significant number of research practices that are missed when the open science movement focuses primarily on open science practices heavily steeped in positivist, quantitative research paradigms, like replicability, reproducibility, and a narrow view of what transparency means (e.g., preregistration; Devezer et al., 2019; Szollosi et al., 2019). Of course, SIPS may be able to play a unique role in introducing scholars from geographically diverse regions to the benefits of psychological science and open science practices, but it would be equally essential for SIPS members to learn from the strengths that these scholars have to offer to the open science community.

Former SIPS President Dr. Katie Corker (2018) said in her closing remarks during the SIPS 2018 meeting,

To expand upon these constructive comments, open science is not only a specific set of behaviors, limited to reproducibility, replicability, and preregistration; to quantitative and experimental research; or to social, personality, and cognitive psychology. Outreach to scholars from geographically diverse regions, then, should focus first on understanding how scholars are already working and what their contexts and needs are (Onie, 2020; Saldanha & Ghai, 2020), rather than imposing a certain set of predetermined tools and practices on others (Bezuidenhout & Havemann, 2020). The conceptualization of psychology as an evidence-based field may be new or inconsistently endorsed, and hyperfocusing on specific interests that are important in “Western” psychology circles may turn off those new to the open science movement. Research done in international settings is also likely to be more interdisciplinary and applied (e.g., Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015) than what mainstream, WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; see Henrich et al., 2010) journals suggest about the field as a whole, which is one of the many reasons it can be difficult for publications to find a home in said journals.

It is easy to stick with research paradigms we are familiar with, but we must resist this urge and approach alternative perspectives and approaches with an open mind. As former SIPS president Dr. Sanjay Srivastava (2019) said in his closing address at SIPS 2019, “SIPS is at its best when it breaks through [the natural tendency for people to craft narrow solutions that just work for themselves, and for people and situations they know], when it brings together people with different knowledge and concerns to work together.” SIPS -- and the open science movement more broadly -- should question whether the unification of methods and tools should even be the goal of open science (Peterson & Panofsky, 2020). Any effort to reach a broader audience that does not take the aforementioned considerations and concerns into account will likely fail, regardless of the nobility of our intentions.

SIPS is not alone in their efforts to improve psychological science, across a variety of contexts. The organization should invest time and resources into building relationships with regional and field-specific organizations who have also been working to engage in open science practices, and support initiatives to expand open access practices. We have provided a list of potential organizations SIPS could reach out to, given interest. This is not intended to be (nor can it be) an exhaustive list of all open science supporting organizations out there. If SIPS wants to make themselves available for others to contact them regarding partnership opportunities, it would be good to have a section of the website and other materials (e.g., conference programs, social media posts) outlining what types of initiatives they support and how people could contact them.

It is worth noting that in some regions, psychology is not viewed as a science; therefore, some of the open science organizations listed emphasize STEM fields rather than psychology specifically. Given the dearth of support and attention education receives compared to research within open science (even within SIPS), it may be most beneficial for SIPS to pay special attention to educational initiatives and organizations.

SIPS may also consider borrowing from other organizations for their own initiatives; for example, Collabra might begin supporting scholars who natively read and write in languages other than English by providing multiple-language abstracts for their articles, as the Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research recently began doing and journals in South America have been doing for decades. Publishing in English is a barrier for scholars who work primarily in other languages, so it may be beneficial to consider how best to support scholars as they create and promote material in other languages (Ortega, 2020). Finally, another use for this partnership list might be to build a network of scholars who might be able to contribute to educational materials, special issues, or “business as usual” published articles. It would be exciting to read a special issue highlighting different geographic regions and regularly published articles featuring research situated within (and led by scholars from) these geographic areas. Normalizing the publication of research from high quality scholars from geographically diverse regions in more mainstream outlets would go some ways toward a more equitable field.

Africa OSH is a community of makers, hackers, practitioners and researchers in science and technology inclusive of government officials, private sector players and civil society across the African continent, the global south and the world. Contact: [email protected]

AJOL is the world's largest and preeminent platform of African-published scholarly journals, working since 1998 to increase global and continental online access, awareness, quality, and use of African-published, peer-reviewed research. Contact: [email protected]

AfricArXiv is a community-led digital archive for African research, working towards building an African-owned open scholarly repository; a knowledge commons of African scholarly works. AfricaArXiv welcomes research written in local African languages, English, and French. Contact: [email protected]

The AOSP provides guidance in overcoming barriers to open science on the African continent, incentivizing open science practices, and building an African open science community with heavy emphasis on open data practices. The AOSP has a strong desire to focus on education and skill development within open science and partner with institutions and individual researchers. Contact: [email protected], [email protected]

APSOHA is a non-profit association that brings together all academics from Haiti, French-speaking Africa, and the rest of the world who want to actively participate in the pursuit of SOHA project activities in favor of fair open science and local, sustainable development in Haiti and in Africa in particular. It also welcomes members of associations who wish to collaborate more with universities. Contact: [email protected]

Arabixiv is an open science repository focused on research done in Arabic speaking countries. Contact: [email protected]

The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative is a multicenter initiative to estimate the reproducibility of Brazilian biomedical science. Contact: [email protected]

The Chinese Open Science Network is a loosely organized grassroots network for Chinese researchers from all academic backgrounds who are interested in open science. The group provides several avenues for social networking, writes open science tutorials in Chinese, conducts meta-research, translates books and blogs into Chinese, and organizes a variety of workshops, journal clubs, tutorials, and talks. Contact: Hu Chuan-Peng, [email protected]

ChinaXiv is an open repository and distribution service for scientific researchers in the field of natural science, which accepts scholarly preprints and conditionally accepts published articles. It is maintained and operated by the National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Science. Contact: [email protected]

The Latin American Forum for Research Assessment (FOLEC) is a regional space for debate and exchange on the meanings, policies and practices of the research evaluation processes of scientific work in the region, from a perspective that strengthens the open, common and public domain of knowledge and its connection with democratizing and sustainable approaches and models of science, committed to the problems of our societies. From a broad and plural viewpoint, it seeks to share experiences and find agreements to build and promote regional evaluation instruments and advance towards guidelines that compromise the scientific systems of the different countries. Contact: [email protected]

The Forum for Open Access in South Asia is an initiative of the Open Access India community of practice to accelerate the momentum in the South Asian region and to establish a regional forum to learn, practice, advocate and work together on various issues and policies related to Open Access, Open Data, and Open Education. Contact: Sridhar Gutam, [email protected]

The ICSI is an all India professional body devoted to encouraging interaction among information and communication professionals, science communicators, social media managers and users. Contact: [email protected]

TST is a network of researchers, journalists and government officials dedicated to building open science in Indonesia. Their collective work has resulted in invited policy briefs on higher education assessment, the establishment of one of the world’s leading repositories, and organising the country’s largest science webinar. Contact: Sandersan Onie, [email protected]; Rizqy Amelia Zein, [email protected]

The Japan Open Science Summit provides information on Japan's activities and efforts within open science, contributing to the progress of open science internationally. Contact: [email protected]

Meta-methods Philippines is an initiative that seeks to organize the Philippine psychological methodological community to tackle the monumental issues that face the field of psychology and social sciences. This includes the replication crisis, the global methods reform, and consequently how to improve statistics and methods pedagogy. The meta-methods pipeline of activities includes the hosting of workshops, brown bag sessions, and research and strategic advocacy for change in local institutions. Contact: Miguel Silan, [email protected]

Open Access India is working to advance the open access movement in India with the following aims and objectives: (1) advocacy – sensitizing the students, researchers, policy makers and general public about open access, open data, and open education; and (2) development of community e-infrastructure, capacity building and framework for policies related to open access, open data, and open education. Contact: Sridhar Gutam, [email protected]

OASPA works to support the transition to a world in which open access becomes the predominant model of publication for scholarly outputs. Their mission is to develop and disseminate publishing solutions that advance open access, preserve the integrity of scholarship, and promote best practice. Contact: Claire Redhead, [email protected]

ODSC hosts one of the largest gatherings of professional data scientists, with major conferences in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Contact: Sheamus McGovern, [email protected]

A collaborative initiative to curate and share knowledge about the what, why, and how of open scholarship. This includes reviewing, organizing, and improving the discoverability of content to support the education and application of open practices for all aspects of the research lifecycle. Contact: Marcy Reedy, [email protected]

Philippine Researchers for Open Science (PROScience) is a multi-disciplinary network of Filipino researchers that (1) adheres to the open science principles of accountability, participation, and transparency; (2) engages in open science practices that are aligned with these principles; and (3) advocates for open science. Contact: James Montilla Doble, [email protected]

The twofold purpose of the Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research is to foster and reward the scholarly efforts of Psi Chi members, whether students or faculty, and to provide them with a valuable learning experience. The articles published in the journal represent the work of undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. The journal is dedicated to increasing its scope and relevance by accepting and involving diverse people of varied racial, ethnic, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious, and social class backgrounds, among many others. In 2016, the journal became open access to broaden the dissemination of research across the psychological science community, and in 2020, began translating abstracts into different languages. Contact: Debi Brannan, [email protected]

LatinREV is the cooperative network of journals and associations of academic journals in the field of social sciences and humanities created at the request of the Department of State and Public Policies and the Library of Social Sciences "Enzo Faletto" from FLACSO Argentina in June 2017. Contact: [email protected]

ReproducibiliTea is a grassroots journal club initiative that helps researchers create local open science journal clubs at their universities to discuss diverse issues, papers and ideas about improving science, reproducibility and the open science movement. ReproducibiliTea is in at least 108 institutions in 25 different countries, including those outside of the US, Canada, and Western Europe. They are completely volunteer run, and provide a unique and supportive community for their members, who are predominantly early career researchers. Contact: Amy Orben, [email protected]

SciELO is a bibliographic database, digital library, and cooperative electronic publishing model of open access journals. Originally established in Brazil in 1997, today there are 16 countries outside of the US, Canada, and Western Europe in the SciELO network. Contact: Ernesto Spinak, [email protected]

The Permanent Seminar of Editors emerged in 2014 as an initiative of the Network of Directors and Editors of Academic and Refereed Journals of the Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México as a forum for the professionalization of the academic editor. Contact: [email protected]

SEANOS is a network of researchers from South East Asia who gather to aim to improve scientific practices in the region. The group aims to develop resources which help researchers -- who face unique regional challenges -- apply open science practices. Contact: Sandersan Onie, [email protected], @OpenScienceSEA

TCPSR is a collaborative group initiated by teachers of experimental psychology from six universities in Taiwan. Through the organization and operation of a psychological science collaboration platform, it promotes the concept and practice of open science to people in the social and behavioral sciences in Taiwan. Contact: Sau-Chin Chen, [email protected]

SIPS should consider directly promoting the organization through attendance at and sponsorship of other meetings or meeting sections. We suggest SIPS help promote webinars, meetups, workshops, and hackathons that align with SIPS’s mission. SIPS does do this with other organizations and meetings already, but many (if not most) are US-and Canada-centric, e.g., the 2019 Society for Personality and Social Psychology member diversity statistics reflect that 77% of its membership comes from the United States with another 7% from Canada (Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2019), and the Society for Affective Science has always (prior to the pandemic) been hosted in the United States (Society for Affective Science, n.d.). The organizations listed in the “Building Partnerships” section would be an excellent starting place for learning about and/or planning such events.

When applicable, potential funding across countries can be sought. This section outlines local and international funds that may support networking between SIPS and potential collaborators. As with the “Building Partnerships” section, this list is neither intended to be (nor can it be) an exhaustive list. Our recommendation is that SIPS start with this list and keep close contact with institutions or research groups worldwide and update the list of such funding sources regularly, given that rules and types of funding may vary widely. Some funding opportunities we are aware of are listed below.

• Argentina: The national agency for research, Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la Innovación, has an annual call for funding scientific meetings (Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, El Desarrollo Tecnológico Y La Innovación, n.d.). Specifically, there is a line of funding for meetings of international scientific associations to be held in Argentina.

• Brazil: The CAPES/Print Program, which aims to promote “the consolidation of strategic plans for the internationalization of institutions; stimulating the creation of international research networks; expanding actions to support internationalization in postgraduate courses; promoting the mobility of professors and students linked to postgraduate courses with international cooperation; fostering the transformation of participating higher education institutions into an international environment” (Neves & Barbosa, 2020). Brazilian universities apply for funding and could use it, for instance, to bring SIPS members who wish to establish long term collaborations with Brazilian scholars. Recent federal cuts to science funding in Brazil may negatively affect this program in the years to come.

Some foundations such as the Spencer Foundation offer grants up to $50,000 for small one-time conferences around themed issues which change each funding cycle (Spencer Foundation, n.d.). The National Endowment for the Humanities offers several options for funding a workshop or conference (National Endowment for the Humanities, n.d.). Funding opportunities will likely change as the full scope of the pandemic’s effects are realized, so it will be important to create and maintain a list of potential opportunities for SIPS and its partners.

Alternative funding sources can also be sought out through crowdfunding. For example, SIPS has had some success using crowdfunding for their Diversity Travel Fund and Student/Postdoc Travel Funds (Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, n.d.-b), and organizations like the Psychological Science Accelerator use Patreon (Psychological Science Accelerator, n.d.). These efforts are not guaranteed to bring in large amounts of money, but the income will generally be more consistent across time than something like a grant.

International publications, events and associations in psychology are overrepresented by American researchers and samples. A lot has been published, for at least three decades on this issue (Adair et al., 2002) , which continues to pose a problem for science. Current times have an advantage over the past due to the advance of technology and the internet. As a result, scholars from traditionally represented geographic regions are in a better position than their predecessors to try and increase the representativity of scholars from geographically diverse regions by reaching out to those scholars through social media, websites, and other online platforms.

Scholars from geographically diverse regions must be approached as partners with valuable skills to offer to their counterparts in more traditionally represented regions, rather than scholars with lesser skills. This does not preclude the role of SIPS in promoting events, training and conversations on open science, but it is important to establish a two-way avenue in which scholars from geographically diverse regions can actively participate in decisions regarding the role SIPS can have in their communities. Only those on the ground know the pressing issues and issues of importance in their geographic region, which is important in setting the vision of the organization.

At the start of the pandemic, R-Ladies (n.d.) chapters around the world, which typically met locally and in-person, had to stop hosting in-person meetups. Since all R-Ladies chapters feature free membership, local chapters do not always have funding for paid Zoom accounts. Instead of each chapter struggling with online meetups, the Global Leadership Team bought a Pro Zoom License and set up an online form where individual chapter organizers could select 15-mins to 2-hour time slots for their online meetup. Since there are over 300 chapters across all possible time zones that usually meet once a month, everyone was able to find a time slot that worked in their local timezone. A Slack channel dedicated to organizing and troubleshooting online meetups was arranged.

Having all local chapters around the world go online provided for unique opportunities. Collaborations between chapters were possible, even when no travel funds were available (e.g., speakers from Country 1 could easily present/teach in Country 2). Attendance was no longer restricted geographically (e.g., chapters from smaller cities were suddenly catering to memberships from six to seven countries across continents at every meetup). Twitter helped with advertising the meetups and different local chapters helped increase visibility. Meetups could be recorded and uploaded on Youtube so that R-Ladies teaching material is now available in multiple languages including Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, and Georgian (R-Ladies Global, n.d.). R-Ladies provides a useful example of how international organizations can adapt to quickly changing circumstances and provide resources for members in an organized and equitable manner.

SIPS may be interested in creating more remote meetings or partnering with a wider range of organizations to sponsor virtual events. In-person events may not always be an option for scholars due to financial, political, personal, or professional regions. (Of course, pandemics also have a way of putting an end to in-person meetings.) It would be beneficial for SIPS to create a set of guidelines for best practices in open science- related events, which would include a collection of strategies and international resources for members. Regional organizers could evaluate local conditions, and use appropriate strategies and resources to increase the awareness of local scholars and eventually provide advanced workshops. If such events are well-advertised, this could lead to opportunities for scholars from around the world to learn from each other.

Even if SIPS cannot financially sponsor every event, even putting their name behind a well-organized event organized by scholars outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe would send a strong message about SIPS’s values around diversity and inclusion as it relates to geographic diversity. It would be beneficial for SIPS to provide public-facing information on the types of events SIPS would be able to sponsor, and what kinds of support someone might expect from SIPS should their event be sponsored.

This section summarizes important considerations around virtual events. It may be helpful for SIPS to collaborate with scholars from geographically diverse regions to create their own guidelines or conference manuals, according to their needs.

• Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access: Several organizations such as the Cultural Evolution Society (2020), Digital Library Federation (2016), Diversity & Inclusion at Conferences and Events (n.d.), and the Web Accessibility Initiative (2020) have created guidelines for promoting equity and inclusion in online conferences, including considerations around making presentations accessible for individuals with disabilities and people working in a non-native language. Additionally, scientists from some countries may be blocked from using certain services, for instance those hosted by Facebook, Twitter, and Google (Lau, 2020).

• Translation: It would be useful to translate important documents into a variety of languages. While it would not be feasible to translate materials into every language, one might use the official languages of the United Nations (n.d.) or Ethnologue’s (2020) top language list as guides for determining which languages and/or language families to focus on. Some conferences, like the International Conference on Community Psychology (see “Geographically Diverse Conference Regions” below), provide real-time translation to and from the host language for at least the larger conference events, like keynotes.

• Wide advertising: It can be especially useful to use tools like the Open Research Calendar (Gould van Praag et al., n.d.) and organizational listservs to promote events using a wide net. For more information about organizations that SIPS conference organizers could potentially partner with, see the “Building Partnerships” section.

• Asynchronous and/or multiple attendance options: Timelines are a challenge for any conference, let alone virtual conferences that are intended to be international. Therefore, it can be helpful to record sessions for attendees to be able to watch on their own time or ask if those running sessions that are expected to be popular (like workshops) if they would be willing to run their session more than once, at differing times, so those in different time zones might be able to attend.

• Opportunities for networking: Even if sessions are recorded, it will be beneficial to allow for multiple opportunities for scholars to network. For example, the Virtual Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research (Center for Open Science, 2021) hosted an open Gather.Town meeting throughout the conference for those who weren’t currently attending sessions to drop in and meet others. Additionally, it may be beneficial for scholars to provide open office hours for scholars wanting guidance on projects, or a directory of scholars who might be willing to mentor or are looking for mentorship. Some organizations, like the Primarily Undergraduate Institution Open Psychological Science (POPS) Network (n.d.) use Slack as a means of networking. SIPS has also recently created a Slack -- this could be used to gather suggestions and feedback about networking initiatives within the organization.

Like many places, due to the current COVID-19 crisis, most of Taiwan’s conferences were virtual in 2020. During one conference, held by the Taiwan Psychological Association (2020), task force members Sau-Chin Chen and Chun-Chia Kung and other like-minded scholars launched a multi-section virtual workshop. The topics covered in this workshop included online experiments experience-sharing (e.g., Psytoolkit, OSWeb and JATOS), among others. The videos are now officially released and available in Chinese.

Also in 2020, the Taiwan Collaboration for Psychological Scientific Research (Chen & Chang, 2019) also managed one/two journal club events each month. The last eight events mixed virtual and in-site meetings (Chen, n.d.) and covered fundamental topics, such as methodological issues and ethical concerns, as recommended by ReproducibiliTea. Sau-Chin Chen and Chun-Chia Kung report that these events raised the senior faculty members’ awareness on topics which were rarely discussed with them before. They shared their experience with the virtual workshop and journal clubs during Research Reproducibility 2020 (Research Reproducibility, n.d.).

We recommend that SIPS hold the annual conference in geographically diverse regions, including those traditionally labeled as “Global South,” “Low and Middle Income Countries,” and countries “with developing research systems.” There are a number of strategies for making this a successful venture, including but not limited to changing the region or continent in which SIPS is held every year, providing regional organizers seed funding for annual or regional conferences, finding a nucleus of 5-10 people who are interested in consistently going to the conference regardless of location, and headlining speakers from the region.

Below, we outline the potential benefits of having a physical conference in geographically diverse regions, highlight a successful international conference as a case study, and propose a few possible locations. We have included a table in the Appendix that describes costs, potential venues, visa restrictions, accommodation costs, and other considerations, and makes suggestions per region. It is important to note this table was largely compiled prior to the pandemic, and there is no guarantee practices will return to pre-pandemic times. Additionally, we would be remiss if we did not reemphasize that regardless of conference location, it is important to meaningfully consider issues around accessibility so that all scholars are able to attend and enjoy conference events (Fleming, 2019; Gould, 2018).

All four SIPS venues so far (2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020) have been located (or were planned to be located) in North America and western Europe (Virginia and Michigan, United States of America; Rotterdam, Netherlands; and Victoria, Canada). While SIPS 2020 ultimately was online, and SIPS 2021 will also be online, the proposed venue for SIPS 2022, Victoria, Canada, is also in North America. Hosting the conference in these locations has posed significant challenges for scholars coming from South America, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. This is a pattern that is not unique to SIPS; as one of many examples, the Association for Psychological Science (whose name was changed from the American Psychological Society in 2006 to emphasize “the international scope of its membership,” n.d.b.) has always held its annual conference in the United States (Association for Psychological Science, n.d.-c), and their international conference, held every other year since 2015, has always been in Western Europe (Association for Psychological Science, n.d.-a).

After SIPS 2019, there was a brief push on social media to have a SIPS conference in Asia. This suggestion was met with varying degrees of concern, particularly around feasibility. Ironically, many of the concerns that were brought up also (and sometimes especially) apply to hosting conferences in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. In fact, there are numerous potential benefits to having the conference in geographically diverse areas.

SIPS’s goal, as outlined in its name, is to better psychological science. This cannot be done effectively while only focusing on a small subset of the population. Diversity is important because fresh perspectives that emerge from outside the mainstream in our field (and in this case, a particular predominant research system) are able to spot shortcomings in existing studies and thinking patterns that have become oblivious to the latter (Vazire & Holcombe, 2020). Having the conference in different locations serves to be inclusive and thorough in investigating the pressing research questions, and coming up with solutions for global problems.

Hosting the conference in geographically diverse locations increases the inclusivity of the conference. Generally speaking, scholars from the United States, Canada, and Western Europe tend to be more financially secure, meaning they have more flexibility in their travel plans. Rotating the conference location across the entire globe will allow a more diverse population to attend the conference as those who have fewer means to attend conferences in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe may have better opportunities to attend a conference in, for example, South America or Asia. When major conferences are held in only one or two geographic regions, less financially secure scholars are systematically excluded, which limits the exposure of their perspectives to an international community.

From a professional development standpoint, hosting conferences in geographically diverse regions enables existing members of SIPS to network and collaborate with those studying similar phenomena in different geographical regions, allowing our research to have more impact (Freeman & Huang, 2014). This also has the potential to reduce the negative career impacts of having limited social networks by allowing researchers to work and potentially publish with a wider range of coauthors (Li et al., 2019).

There are, however, a few myths that need to be addressed:

1. There are numerous visa restrictions.

   There are many locations outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe which are travel hubs, and thus would allow travelers from across the world to have access to them. For example, one of our proposed locations, Singapore, allows visa-free entry to people from 162 countries and is 12th on Passport Index’s Welcoming Countries Rank (2020), a tool used to compare countries by their acceptance of visa-free, visa on arrival, or electronic travel authorization (eTA) travel.

   On the other hand, previous SIPS locations, such as Canada (2020), Netherlands (2019) and the United States of America (2017 and 2018), rank 83rd, 59th, and 74th on this list, respectively. Italy, the location of SIPS 2023, is the least restrictive, ranking 57th. Visa restrictions, then, are more likely to be a problem for scholars when traveling to the United States, Canada, and Western Europe than many other countries, especially if travelers are from particular countries or feature certain demographic characteristics. For example, one task force member noted that in Africa, single female students, even when traveling with family, have often experienced issues getting visas to other regions.

2. Holding conferences outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe is more expensive.

   On average, the cost of traveling to the location may rise due to geographic distance, depending on where someone is located (see Myth 3 below); however, other costs such as food, transport, leisure, and conference costs are likely to drop. To provide a concrete example, it can cost about $150-200 USD/night to stay at a 3-star hotel room in Chicago, Illinois during the summer,² which is similar to the price range for a 4- or 5-star hotel in Singapore. Likewise, meals in Chicago (outside of fast food restaurants) might cost someone $15-20 USD per person; similar meals approximately $5-10 in Santiago, Chile.³

3. Traveling outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe takes longer.

   Due to different travel routes, it would take similar time for some individuals in the United States (particularly those not located near international travel hubs) to travel to locations like Victoria, Canada (the SIPS 2022 location), as it would to travel to certain locations in other areas of the world and could incur similar costs. For example, one task force member in southern Indiana lives over 125 miles from the nearest international airport (SDF) and flying from her regional airport (EVV) adds significant costs. For a trip to the airport closest to the German side of her family (Frankfurt, Germany), the cheapest nearby (generously defined) international flights are out of Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, 5-6 hours away by car. The cheapest flight path out of her regional airport doubles her total flight cost ($700 USD from ORD; $1600 USD from EVV) and only saves her about two hours of travel time. Traveling along a more “reasonable path” (STL to FRA) is almost $1300 USD and involves an almost 3-hour drive, saving her about an hour of travel time compared to flying out of Chicago.⁴

   Implicit in arguments around distance to conference locations is the prioritization of the travel needs of more funded researchers, who tend to be from larger cities, which tends to mean greater access to international airports and public transportation. It does in fact take somewhat longer to go from Chicago, Illinois, USA to Santiago, Chile than to Rotterdam, the Netherlands, but for many scholars who aren’t located in central transportation hubs, travel takes a long time regardless of the end location. Scholars from South America, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Oceania have consistently been expected to travel very long distances (and pay large sums of money relative to their local currency, see Myth 2) to attend major conferences in their field, so the argument that travel to Asia (for example) “takes longer” is rather one-sided. It would make sense, then, to rotate the conference locations accordingly, so different groups of scholars have to occasionally travel long distances to conferences, rather than the same group every time.

4. Locations outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe are unsafe.

   There are areas in any country that are less safe. However, the notion that in general, locations outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe are unsafe is untrue. For example, Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in Asia and is ranked seventh on the Global Peace Index (Vision of Humanity, 2020), which factors in societal safety and security; domestic and international conflict, and militarization. Taiwan is another example in Asia which has been noted by the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. State Department as low in crime (n.d.).

   There are numerous countries on the list we have provided in the index which fall into similar categories. Furthermore, like the United States and Europe, each area has certain rules and safety requirements, which if followed, greatly increases the likelihood of safety.

5. There may not be suitable amenities or technologies for holding conferences outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe.

   There are many cities in geographically diverse regions that have amenities on par -- or even better -- than many core locations in North America, Europe and Oceania, as shown in the section below. In fact, Pacific Asia is the second-most competitive region regarding travel and tourism, with Japan ranking fourth in a World Economic Forum report on travel and tourism competitiveness (Calderwood & Soshkin, 2019).

One example of a sustainable international conference is the International Conference of Community Psychology (ICCP), which is held in a different continent/region every two years. Their conference exemplifies geographic diversity; since its inaugural conference in 2006, ICCP has been held in a variety of locations:

• twice in Central America (San Juan, Puerto Rico; Puebla, Mexico)

• twice in South America (Fortaleza, Brazil; Santiago, Chile)

• twice in Europe (Lisbon, Portugal; Barcelona, Spain)

• once in Africa (Durban, South Africa), and

• once in Oceania (Melbourne, Australia; went virtual due to the pandemic)

The first ICCP had an attendance of more than 350 people, and the conference has grown since, with a peak attendance of almost 950 attendees in 2014 (International Conference of Community Psychology, 2019). The proportion of attendees from the host country has ranged from around 20% to a little over 80%.

To accomplish these attendance rates, a local committee organizes and finances the conference, with the help of local universities and organizations. In selecting said committee, ICCP calls for proposals that include information on:

• hosting institutions,

• proposed conference dates and location,

• conference organization and management (including budget and funding plans), and

• logistics and facilities.

Previous conference organizers evaluate the submitted proposals, with both inclusivity and accessibility in mind.

The Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) also provides ICCP some funding to invite a speaker from the location. Leftover money from the conference mostly goes to publishing a book or a special issue on the conference, with most articles being multilingual.

Below we list some potential options, with a more comprehensive list found in the appendix. Note that this information was collected pre- and during COVID restrictions and are subject to change in the future.

As one of the central business hubs in Asia, Singapore boasts some of the world’s best amenities, including Marina Bay Sands. Thus, it attracts some of the world’s largest corporate gatherings, being well equipped to handle even large conferences. While there are certain regions with visa restrictions (primarily around Russia and the Middle East), as a popular tourist destination, Singapore accepts passports from a vast majority of countries. Travel times vary from 15-19 hours from the United States and Europe, with travel costing less than $1000 AUD. Accommodation ranges from $50-$200 AUD per night, with food often costing less than $10 AUD. In addition to the amenities, Singapore is home to Nanyang University of Singapore and National University of Singapore, both world class universities where the open science community is growing.

Similar to Singapore, Indonesia is another thriving business hub in Asia, housing the Association for SouthEast Asian Nations in the capital city of Jakarta. As one of Asia’s largest economies, amenities for conferences are common, with the Jakarta Convention Center and Bali Convention Center being a primary location for many international events. Indonesia allows for visa applications from a vast majority of countries, with restrictions in place for travelers from certain parts of Africa. Flights cost approximately $1100 AUD, with one layover depending on airlines. Accomodation costs approximately $50-$200 AUD per night, with meals costing between $10-$20 AUD. Indonesia has several destinations that would accommodate such a conference, primarily Jakarta and Bali, and a thriving Open Science community that has held workshops, developed strong government-researcher ties, and influenced national policy.

Taiwan combines a rich cultural heritage, world renown night markets, and world class corporate amenities to be a suitable site for a conference. As of writing, flight and visa details are not available or may not be accurate; however, flights from the United States and Europe take between 14 and 23 hours with one layover. Accommodation costs roughly $50-$200 AUD with meals costing between $8-$20 AUD. Potential venues include 228 Peace Memorial Park, Taipei Convention Centre, Novotel Taipei Taoyuan International Airport, and Marriott Taipei. In addition to the conference, there are a slew of other activities, including visiting the vast and varied night markets or the marble gorge.

Located in the heart of South Asia, India offers its travelers its rich culture and history and diverse landscapes, making it an ideal conference destination. Flights to India from the United States and Europe can range from $500-$1,000 USD, with travel times ranging from 10 to 22 hours, with at least one layover. Accommodation and meal costs are varied and would fit any budget, many 3-star hotels averaging $50 USD a night (breakfast included). Possible conference venues include the University of Mumbai, Bombay Exhibition Center in Mumbai, and Bangalore International Exhibition Centre and Sheraton Grand Bengaluru Whitefield Hotel & Convention Center in Bangalore. Interest in open science is ever-growing in India, with the help of leading organization Open Access India.

Known for its biodiversity, beaches, and its annual Carnival, Brazil easily makes it to anyone’s top tourist locations. The 2014 International Conference on Community Psychology was held at the Universidade Federal do Ceará in Fortaleza, Brazil. Flights to Brazil from the United States and Western Europe can cost as low as $500 USD. Travel times, including at least one layover, can range from 10 to 24 hours. Nonstop flights are also available, costing approximately $700 USD. Many 4- to 5-star hotels in Brazil fall within the $50 - 100 USD range per night. The Riocentro Exhibition & Convention Center and Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (both in Rio de Janeiro), Expo Center Norte and Sao Paulo Expo (both in Sao Paulo), and Centro de Eventos do Ceará in Fortaleza are highly-recommended conference venues. Many conferences are also hosted in hotels and universities, and most capital cities have appropriate venues and accommodations. Brazil is also home to the Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative and the Brazilian Society of Psychology.

There are many exciting opportunities to connect open science scholars across the globe in beautiful, safe venues. It is only through taking advantage of these opportunities that we can expand our ideas about what is possible.

While to our knowledge, SIPS has never advertised itself as an organization for those with limited resources, we know from its dedication to providing funds for scholars through diversity and student/postdoc travel grants that financial accessibility is important to the organization. Therefore, we recommend SIPS explore and expand options for affordable membership and innovative ways to support open science efforts for scholars from diverse backgrounds. This could include but is not limited to adding reduced cost membership tiers and reworking language around hardship waivers, providing more travel scholarships for scholars to attend workshops and conferences, and providing mini-grants to open science-related endeavors across education, research, and service. To help support these efforts, it will be important to make visible the options for interested parties to donate to such efforts, for example on the listserv, website, social media, and in conference registration and proceedings.

Financial barriers are not new to academia. One of the most common barriers to the recruitment of diverse students to graduate programs is financial in nature (Pyke & Sheridan, 1993; Quarterman, 2008). Part of the financial hardships graduate students in particular face revolves around conference travel and registration, compounded by “pay now, get reimbursed later” practices employed by many universities. Across career stage, who gets grant funding and for how much is often affected by structural issues outside of merit, meaning there is often less grant funding available to scholars from marginalized backgrounds, without famous advisors, and at smaller institutions (Bol et al., 2018; Steinþórsdóttir et al., 2020; Wahls, 2018). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many university and personal budgets, and is likely to have affected these budgets in inequitable manners (Ancona et al., 2020; Shapiro, 2020).

Even before the pandemic, scholars across geographic regions shared that in best case scenarios, maybe one professional membership is covered by university funds. This is likely more true for scholars who work at non-research-focused institutions. When provided, these funds typically go to field- and/or region-specific organizations. Many (perhaps most) universities expect scholars to cover their own professional membership costs. Given these limitations, scholars -- perhaps particularly early career scholars -- may focus on cost, sense of community, real and perceived organizational values, and a balance between strategic and symbolic investments when considering which professional organizations to belong to (LaFlamme, 2020).

With this in mind, financial barriers can be particularly burdensome when considering payments in strong currencies (US Dollars, Euros) for people from many regions (e.g., Latin America) where there are periodic fast and huge currency devaluations. This makes it difficult to plan large payments in US Dollars or Euros in the future (for a conference, for example), or in regular intervals (such as for membership). Scholars can be reluctant to commit to a future payment in a strong currency because of this, and not due to an unwillingness to contribute to the organization or conference or the organization’s goals.

Financial issues pose a particularly strong barrier, then, for scholars from a variety of backgrounds wanting to attend international conferences. For example, faculty at one institution in Kenya can compete for conference support only once every three years; this funding is not guaranteed. Additionally, many graduate students have to justify how attending a conference will help them reach PhD goals to obtain a travel grant; attendance at an open science conference may not be considered legitimate by reviewing bodies. For example, one task force member’s university requires that those applying for conference grants are listed as presenters at the conference; for them, the legitimacy barrier compounds with the non-traditional format of SIPS. Visa costs may also be prohibitive; for example, non-immigrant visa applications for the United States currently cost around $160 USD (United States Department of State, n.d.-b), which is not refundable if the United States denies the visa or refuses entry (United States Department of State, n.d.-a).

Financial barriers do not only apply to conference attendance. Many scholars across the globe work at institutions that have not yet embraced open science practices and would not financially support the development of open science initiatives or research. For instance, many institutions do not provide funds for publishing open access or being a member of open science organizations. While scholars may be unable to afford these costs, it is unclear how many scholars in these circumstances would consider themselves as being “in hardship,” which may influence whether they ask for conference or membership fee waivers labeled as “hardship waivers.”

The various financial barriers described above have led several organizations (including those cited below) to attempt to find ways to provide financial support for scholars to engage with organization-related activities. Mini-grant programs are a potential solution to funding issues for open science initiatives, as they have been used to incentivize open educational resource creation and adoption (Todorinova & Wilkinson, 2020), engagement in community partnerships (Alexander et al., 2020), and other important research and advocacy initiatives. These types of programs may also be helpful for building a sense of community, especially if mentorship and networking practices are integrated into them. It will be important to consider what factors may affect whether mini-grants lead to long-term change and best practices for supporting mini-grant awardees (Deacon et al., 2009). It would likely also benefit academia if SIPS were involved in policy efforts to address funding inequities, institutional openness to open science practices, and less restrictive government travel policies, which could improve professional outcomes for scholars within and outside of SIPS.

The Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA; 1100+ members) recently created a new form of free membership tier, Student Associate Membership, for undergraduate students (~200 members). In addition, there is a paid undergraduate membership tier, at $15 USD annually. SCRA also offers reduced price membership fees for non-US members (around 50% cost). SCRA Members (with the exception of Student Associates) receive access to the American Journal of Community Psychology; conversations with SCRA members revealed there were concerns about not having enough free journal subscriptions to provide for students at this tier. This is the only difference between Student Associates and other membership types -- all other benefits (listed on their website) are the same.

Historically, SCRA has also offered a mini-grant program, where members can apply for small funds (typically up to $1000 USD) that align with SCRA’s vision, mission, principles, and goals; e.g., racial and social justice, policy work, community interventions, and education in community research and action.

The European Association of Social Psychology (EASP; 1200+ members) currently offers three membership cost tiers for their full and postgraduate members: full (100% cost), reduced (50% cost), and one-year waivers. Applicants are able to choose their membership tier with no questions asked. A conversation with organizational leadership revealed less than 10% of members applied under the reduced tier. EASP receives 5-10 applications for waivers per year. Interestingly, EASP formerly had a membership structure where membership fees were assigned based on the member’s country; this was judged to be unfair as there may be members who were struggling financially or without institutional support in some of the wealthier countries and members who could afford the higher fees in less wealthy countries. All members receive the same benefits.

Additionally, EASP members are encouraged to apply for a variety of grants (up to €1000-€5000, depending on the type of grant) for conference travel, seed money for new research lines, pre-registered research, research in under-resourced geographic regions, and international collaboration.

This year, the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM; 1800+ members) is instituting a change in their conference registration system. In addition to the regular registration tier for faculty ($100 USD), SJDM offers an advanced tier ($200 USD) and premium tier ($300 USD); the extra funds from these tiers are used to sponsor students and faculty who need financial assistance. Prior to the pandemic, they had also announced a travel scholarship program for students from underrepresented backgrounds, with an initial yearly budget of $7,500 USD.

The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) hosted their first (virtual) conference this year. Those who could afford it were encouraged to register at the $60 USD tier; this created two free spots for others at the conference, for a maximum of 300 attendees. These efforts resulted in 69 paid and 188 free attendees.

We recommend SIPS regularly conduct and support surveys to understand why scholars join and/or leave SIPS and to gain a better understanding of the kinds and rate of adoption of open science practices among SIPS members and psychologists across the globe. In addition, we recommend the use of qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, to gain a richer understanding of challenges and opportunities relevant to SIPS activities.

A consequence of the “Western” bias in psychological science, also present in the open science community, is the lack of information on how other research communities around the world see and adopt open science practices. Given that SIPS is trying to increase the diversity of its member base, including with regard to geographic diversity, it is important to accurately establish a baseline of what scholars around the world understand about open science. Without this kind of information it is not possible for SIPS to fully understand, for example, why people from countries outside the US may choose to join (or forgo joining) the society.

Only recently a number of surveys (see the Case Studies below) were conducted to assess whether and how scholars adopt open science practices in several countries. An important aspect of several of these surveys is that they were conducted by scholars within those countries, who most likely have a better grasp of how to approach their community (e.g., contact departments, colleagues, and students). It is worth noting that open science may be used within a certain country, but not within psychology. For example, in Africa, it appears that those in the physical sciences or medical domain may be more inclined to have some knowledge of open science practices, but that is likely because psychology is viewed as a "humanity" across much of the continent. Therefore, the knowledge of open science that psychologists have in one geographic area might not be indicative of the broader state of open science in that particular country.

Surveys can serve a range of purposes. As diversity and inclusivity is a focus of SIPS (n.d.-a), a climate survey can inform SIPS about the strengths and weaknesses of the society regarding recruitment and maintenance of membership across a variety of demographic groups. Scholars from less represented groups may find it difficult to voice opinions publicly, especially if said opinions are critical of a popular organization or movement. An anonymous survey may provide scholars -- regardless of membership status -- the opportunity to provide honest feedback. SIPS can use this information to create better tools to include, protect, and give voice to members of these groups.

Moreover, this information can help identify structural issues that SIPS can work to tackle, instead of focusing on simplistic strategies that may instead drive people away from the institution. For instance, a common criticism to the open science movement is the predominance of a simple narrative (e.g., preregistration should be mandatory for everyone, badges will increase data sharing, just use R, just use Bayes Factors, etc.) over more sophisticated debates (e.g., institutional change is required to change individual behavior, psychology needs more theory, we need to address prejudice and discrimination in the open science movement, etc.). Several theorists have argued the mindless adoption of open science practices may only replace one flawed system by another (Devezer et al., 2020; Peterson & Panofsky, 2020; Smaldino & McElreath, 2016). Seeing SIPS leadership wrangle with these arguments in a sincere, good faith manner can send a strong signal that the “open” in “open science” should probably also include “open to criticism.”

Similarly, scholars from geographically diverse regions have argued against solutions to the lack of international representativity that predominantly focus on leadership from the United States, Canada, and Western Europe (Chaudhary & Sriram, 2020). Open science surveys (see Case Studies) can help detect motivations, interests and skills from geographically diverse regions that can be used by SIPS to build an international network with more horizontal collaborations and diverse leadership. For instance, the adequacy of this task force’s suggestions can be assessed by a larger audience in a global survey. Otherwise, any initiative may fail to reach out to those scholars that would benefit most of establishing connections with SIPS. It may also be helpful to partner with organizations like SEANOS, who are currently planning a large-scale survey of Southeast Asian scholars around open science and behaviors.

Scaria & Ray (2018) from the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition (CIIPC), Delhi, conducted a survey “to gain more insights on attitudes and sharing practices of Indian researchers with respect to issues like open access, open science, transparency, reproducibility, and collaborations” (p. 115). This survey of researchers from the top three institutions from the fields of economics, law, mechanical engineering, medicine, and physics found awareness about the reproducibility crisis and overall positive attitudes towards open science, but low engagement in specific open science practices. Results also evidenced low knowledge about funding agencies/institution policies and monitoring and high satisfaction with the status-quo (e.g., intellectual property rights, data sharing, open access to publications).

Belaus et al. (2020) from the National University of Cordoba, Argentina, created a short survey for grad students and researchers. One sample was constituted by grad students and researchers from the Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIPsi, National University of Cordoba, Argentina). A second sample included members (undergraduate and graduate students, and researchers) of the Asociación Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento (i.e., a national association in Argentina, with participation from different areas of the country). The goal was to inquire about the experiences and perceptions of importance and difficulties in implementing open science practices. Most participants perceive open science practices as necessary but have low experience with them. The main barriers reported are lack of training, lack of support and financing by institutions, and lack of support from senior researchers.

Koyama & Page-Gould (2020) from the University of Toronto surveyed graduate students and researchers. Most responders self-identified as white/caucasian. Commonly reported barriers were fear of persecution and concerns for reputation and job security, personal insecurities (e.g., appearing ignorant or making mistakes), lack of resources for engagement, and perception of lack of concrete solutions and consensus, and lack of guidance or facilitation for involvement. Motivations for participating in open science discussion were to improve psychological science, learn new skills, engage in networking and collaboration, and valuing openness and diversity.

Rabelo and colleagues (2019) surveyed 232 Brazilian researchers in psychology about questionable research practices (QRPs). Brazilian researchers indicated a lower tendency to engage in two QRPs (failing to report all of a study's dependent measures, deciding whether to collect more data after looking to see whether the results were significant) than their Italian and North American counterparts. However, participants indicated a higher tendency to engage in two other QRPs (selectively reporting studies that “worked;” not reporting all of a study's conditions).

Nobes & Harris (2019) conducted a survey of 507 researchers from low- and middle-income countries to gain insight into awareness of and attitudes toward open access publishing. The survey revealed limitations to gaining access to research literature. Attitudes toward OA research and journals were positive, but when publishing, factors related to international reputation (e.g., impact factors) were considered more important. A majority of respondents had published in an open access journal, and also paid article processing charges. Use and knowledge of self-archiving via repositories was limited, only 20% of the respondents deposited their research in an institutional repository. While attitudes toward openly sharing data were positive, respondents revealed a lack of guidance on how to do so.

Christensen and colleagues (2019) conducted a survey of 2,787 respondents mainly from traditionally represented countries. This study provides an assessment of awareness of, attitudes toward, perceived norms regarding, and adoption of open science practices within four social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, sociology. The results revealed that there is an increase in the adoption of open science practices in the last few years, and attitudes toward open science and research transparency are similar between early-career and senior researchers. However, the pace of change differs by field and methodology.

Houtcoup and colleagues (2018) conducted a survey on barriers and preconditions to data sharing in psychology. 600 authors of articles in psychology filled in the survey. Results suggested that data are shared infrequently. Perceived barriers to data sharing include the belief that data sharing is still not common practice, preference to share data only on request, perception that data sharing may require more work, and a lack of training awareness on how/where to share data. The survey suggests that encouragement from journals, institutions, and funders will be effective in overcoming barriers to data sharing, and an increase in training and knowledge on how and where data can be shared effectively.

Montilla Doble (2018) surveyed 57 graduate students from the University of the Philippines Diliman Department of Psychology about their engagement in open science practices. Results suggested that there is an opportunity to educate psychology graduate students in the Philippines about open science practices and that simply being aware of open science and the behaviors associated with it is not enough to facilitate doing said practices. The pilot study recommends that psychology professors and mentors should increase their graduate students’ competence in conducting open research by integrating open science into their syllabi, curricula, and overall training.

Overall, these case studies suggest that in many geographically underrepresented countries, there are still barriers to engaging with open science practices and discussions. While both junior and senior researchers show a positive attitude toward open science and research transparency, the barriers primarily include a lack of knowledge, resources, training, and experience, and limited encouragement at an institutional level. An active engagement of SIPS with individuals from geographically diverse regions can thus prove to be beneficial in building a more holistic knowledge infrastructure and encourage more horizontal collaborations and diverse leadership.

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force would like to thank Dr. Ljiljana B. Lazarević (University of Belgrade, Serbia), Dr. Joseph Hilgard (Illinois State University, USA), Dr. Koki Ikeda (Meiji Gakuin University, Japan), Linh Nguyễn (University of Minnesota, USA), Miguel Silan (University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines), Neha Moopen (Utrecht University Library, the Netherlands), and Rizqy Amelia Zein (Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia) for their assistance with the task force formation and early information gathering.

We would also like to thank Dr. Irma Serrano García (University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Dr. Lenny Jason (DePaul University, USA), Dr. Hu Chuan-Peng (Nanjing Normal University, China), Lou Shomette (Executive Director, Psychonomic Society, USA), Dr. Nurit Shnabel (Tel-Aviv University, Israel), Dr. Ola Shobowale (European Association of Social Psychology, the Netherlands), Dr. Katie Corker (Grand Valley State University, USA), and Dr. Crystal Hall (University of Washington, USA) for providing additional information and perspectives for this report.

Finally, we would like to thank Kristina Arwood (University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN, USA) for her assistance with formatting the report that went to SIPS.

To see a map of our contributors, please reference Figure 1.

All authors contributed substantially to conception and design; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; drafting and revising the manuscript, and final approval of the version to be published. CNS served as chair for the task force and helped to organize efforts.

This report was not funded.

SO & SC serve as SIPS executive board members, and LJMD serves as a SIPS ex officio board member.