Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self‐reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM‐B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM‐B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.

中文翻译：

---

英国和爱尔兰心理学系开放研究实践的注册报告调查

开放研究实践旨在提高研究的透明度和可重复性。尽管有证据表明，在新的基础设施和政策的推动下，这些实践的采用率有所增加，例如研究预注册和开放数据，但很少有研究评估心理学大学研究人员对此类实践的普遍采用情况。目前的研究估计了英国和爱尔兰大学心理学家参与开放研究实践的水平，同时还评估了可能影响他们参与的可能解释因素。数据收集自英国和爱尔兰的 602 名心理学研究人员，了解他们实施各种实践的程度（例如，预印本的使用、预注册、开放数据、开放材料）。在这里，我们提出了总结的描述性结果，并考虑了不同类别的研究人员之间的差异（例如，职业阶段、子学科、方法论），并检查了研究人员的实践与其自我报告的能力、机会和动机之间的关系（COM- B) 从事开放的研究实践。结果表明，虽然开放研究实践的参与程度存在相当大的差异，但相比之下，职业阶段和心理学分支学科之间的差异很小。根据受访者的研究方法以及对开放研究的机构支持，我们观察到了一致的差异。 COM-B 维度是参与开放研究的总体重要预测因素，而自动动机则成为持续强有力的预测因素。我们讨论这些发现，概述本研究中遇到的一些挑战，并为未来的研究提供意见和建议。估计负责任的研究实践的普遍程度对于评估研究改革中的持续行为变化、定制教育培训计划以及了解可能影响参与的潜在因素非常重要。