Early adoption of Open Science practices improves research quality
Anna Popova on her experiences with Open Science
The three key lessons:
- Consciously engaging with Open Science early on in one’s scientific career helps to plan studies more carefully, avoid methodological weaknesses and defend even insignificant results in a robust manner.
- Practices such as pre-registration, open data and replication studies not only increase methodological rigour, but also protect young researchers in particular from accusations of selective evaluation or inadequate research.
Exchanging ideas with researchers who share similar values facilitates collaboration, builds trust and supports the development of common research goals.
How did the experience during your master’s thesis, in particular the limited access to data and information, shape your attitude towards the principles of open science?
AP: I was first introduced to the principles of Open Science during my Master’s studies, while working on a meta-analysis for my thesis. Engaging deeply with the scientific literature, I was surprised to find that many papers lacked essential information and did not provide access to their datasets. This created significant obstacles for my research and raised important questions about trustworthiness and reproducibility. Since then, I have actively sought to learn more about Open Science practices and have come to appreciate how vital they are for conducting high-quality, unbiased research.
Can you give us an example of best practice from your field?
AP: I believe registered reports are a great example of Open Science in practice, and they are becoming increasingly accepted across disciplines. A registered report is a paper that is written and accepted by a journal before the results are known. This approach helps to avoid publication bias and selective reporting: researchers design the study, pre-specify their analyses, and only then, once the data are collected, fill in the actual results.
Have you had any specific experiences that may have surprised you?
AP: I am currently working on a large meta-analysis, and one thing that continues to surprise me is the heterogeneity in reporting standards across journals. Many papers – even those published in top journals – report significance thresholds but omit the actual p-values.
Have your Open Science activities brought you any specific benefits?
AP: Yes, I have participated in replication games, where I had to replicate a political science paper. It was a great opportunity to explore a research agenda that interests me, but from the perspective of another field.
What benefits do you see for doctoral students and young researchers when they start engaging with Open Science practices early in their career?
AP: It has many benefits: first and foremost, you produce good quality research. Pre-registering your project allows to think very deeply about the design and avoid preventable problems. This way, even insignificant results are easier to defend and publish.
How do supervisors or senior researchers respond to your engagement with Open Science and/or Lab Square? Do they support it, or is there skepticism?
AP: My supervisor is a great supporter of Open Science. Again, because for him (I believe) the most important thing is to produce quality reproducible research.
Which Open Science practices (e.g., preprints, open data, replication studies) do you consider particularly relevant in economic research
AP: All of these practices are important for economic research, but in my opinion, replication studies are particularly relevant. Many prominent studies have become foundational to our field, shaping how we think and conduct research. As a PhD student, it can be difficult to challenge these seminal works, even when you find contradictions. Replicating older studies and demonstrating that some fundamental results may not be as robust as previously believed is essential for allowing young scholars to move the science forward.
How does Open Science influence your view on scientific collaboration and networking with other early-career researchers?
AP: I definitely find collaborating with people who support Open Sciencepractices and see them as valuable more promising. To me, these are core values that allow to identify the objectives of a researcher and I am super happy to see that many young scholars are in favor of open science.
Do you feel that Open Science supports the career development of early-career researchers, or does it entail risks?
AP: It definitely allows you to defend your work more confidently as an early-career researcher. As mentioned above, obtaining ‘surprising’ or insignificant results is a normal part of scientific practice. If you can show that the contradiction you found with a seminal study is consistent with a failed replication or that your own study was pre-registered and transparently conducted, it strengthens your credibility and protects you against the perception that your findings are due to poor research design or data mining.
What initiatives would you like to see from academic institutions or funding organisations to make Open Science more attractive for early-career researchers?
AP: Open Science should be properly incentivized. It often involves a significant amount of additional work, which is frequently underappreciated. While certain practices – like pre-registration – are becoming standard, the quality of implementation still varies greatly. For example, pre-registering a study is now expected, but creating a clear, informative, and well-structured pre-registration is not. The same applies to well-documented data packages. To address this, we should promote best practices, provide institutional support, and develop standardized tools and guidelines to make high-quality Open Science both easier and more rewarding.
Do you have any tips for scientists who have not yet had any experience with Open Science on what they should pay particular attention to when getting started?
AP: Be patient. Many Open Science practices are still not fully incentivized by the academic system, but they are absolutely worth the effort. For example, preparing a pre-analysis plan for my experimental project helped me think more deeply about my design. It significantly improved the quality of the study and helped me avoid major mistakes I might have otherwise overlooked.
To what extent do you find working with Open Science enriching for science and research?
AP: Open Science has helped me reconnect with my original motivation for doing research. In an environment where “publish or perish” often dominates, it’s easy to lose sight of the purpose of science. I started my PhD out of genuine curiosity and interest in understanding the world, and Open Science practices have helped bring that back. Even results that are not statistically significant can still be valuable – and Open Science encourages us to recognize and share that.
Based on your experience, how do you assess the future significance of Open Science?
AP: Given the ongoing replication crisis, I believe Open Science will play an increasingly central role in the future of research. It’s already becoming difficult to publish experimental work without pre-registration, and more researchers are beginning to appreciate the value of transparency – not just as a requirement, but as a core part of rigorous and meaningful science.
In your opinion, how could more scientists be convinced of the advantages of Open Science?
AP: I haven’t yet met anyone who wasn’t ultimately convinced of the value of Open Science. I do understand the concern that “Open Science can kill creativity,” but when I look at the number of failed replications of seminal papers, I think: it’s okay to constrain creativity that can’t withstand a bit of methodological rigor. There is already ample scientific evidence and a growing consensus that Open Sciencepractices improve research quality and benefit the scientific community as a whole.
What is your view on communicating with a broader interested public?
AP: Communicating with the broader public makes Open Science practices even more important. Many non-specialist audiences focus on the results, without necessarily engaging with the methodological details or questioning the robustness of the findings. That’s why it’s crucial for researchers to follow transparent and rigorous practices – such as pre-registration, data sharing, and full reporting – to ensure that the evidence we communicate is unbiased and trustworthy. Open science not only improves the credibility of our work within academia but also builds public trust in research by making the scientific process more accessible and accountable.
Thank you very much!
*The interview was conducted on 13 August 2025 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.
About Anna Popova:
Anna Popova is a doctoral candidate at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, where her research focuses on behavioural economics and meta-science. Since October 2024, she has been representing doctoral students in the Department of Economics as PhD Women Representative. She received a scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for her master’s degree in Germany at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. She is also member of Lab2.
Contact: https://www.econ.lmu.de/de/personen/kontaktseite/anna-popova-7b7a998c.html
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/popovaanna/