Clinical psychology, like other disciplines, is facing a replication/credibility crisis that undermines the evidentiary basis of our science. The Open Science Movement (OSM) offers solutions through practices such as preregistration, Registered Reports, and sharing of data, materials, and code. Clinical psychology has been slow to adopt these reforms, leaving trainees underprepared for emerging norms. This article reviews the factors that contributed to the crisis, outlines the necessary role of transparency in distinguishing rigorous from flawed research, and documents the limited uptake of open science practices in clinical journals and graduate training. We argue that transparency is an ethical as well as methodological imperative and propose a competency-based model for embedding open science principles into doctoral education. We conclude by calling on programs, journals, and accrediting bodies to make transparency a core requirement, essential for restoring credibility and advancing a cumulative, trustworthy clinical science.
Lynam et al. (Thu,) studied this question.