Although open science has become a popular tool to combat the replication crisis, it is unclear whether the uptake of open science practices has been consistent across the field of psychology. In this study, we were particularly interested in whether claims that developmental psychology lags behind other subfields in adopting open science practices were valid. To test this, we determined whether data and material sharing differed as a function of psychological subfield at the distinguished journal, Psychological Science. The results showed that open data and open materials scores increased from 2014–2015 to 2019–2020. Of note, articles published in the field of developmental psychology generated lower open data and open materials scores than articles published in cognition; however, scores were similar to articles published in social psychology. Across Psychological Science articles, shared data and materials were seldom accompanied by documentation that is likely to make shared research objects useful. These findings are discussed in the context of the unique challenges faces by developmental psychologists and how journals can more effectively encourage authors to practice open science across psychology.

中文翻译：

---

我们都在同一页面上吗？心理学开放科学实践的子领域差异

尽管开放科学已成为应对复制危机的流行工具，但尚不清楚开放科学实践在整个心理学领域的采用是否一致。在这项研究中，我们特别感兴趣的是关于发展心理学在采用开放科学实践方面落后于其他子领域的说法是否有效。为了测试这一点，我们确定了著名期刊《心理科学》中的数据和材料共享是否因心理学子领域的功能而有所不同。结果显示，从2014-2015年到2019-2020年，开放数据和开放材料得分有所上升。值得注意的是，在发展心理学领域发表的文章产生的开放数据和开放材料分数低于在认知领域发表的文章；然而，分数与社会心理学中发表的文章相似。在心理科学文章中，共享数据和材料很少附带可能使共享研究对象有用的文档。这些发现是在发展心理学家面临的独特挑战以及期刊如何更有效地鼓励作者实践跨心理学的开放科学的背景下讨论的。