Open Science is for Aging Research, Too

Derek Isaacowitz*, Majse Lind

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)


In response to concerns about the replicability of published research, some disciplines have used open science practices to try to enhance the credibility of published findings. Gerontology has been slow to embrace these changes. We argue that open science is important for aging research, both to reduce questionable research practices that may also be prevalent in the field (such as too many reported significant age differences in the literature, underpowered studies, hypothesizing after the results are known, and lack of belief updating when findings do not support theories), as well as to make research in the field more transparent overall. To ensure the credibility of gerontology research moving forward, we suggest concrete ways to incorporate open science into gerontology research: for example, by using available preregistration templates adaptable to a variety of study designs typical for aging research (even secondary analyses of existing data). Larger sample sizes may be achieved by many-lab collaborations. Though using open science practices may make some aspects of gerontology research more challenging, we believe that gerontology needs open science to ensure credibility now and in the future.
Original languageEnglish
JournalInnovation in Aging
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)1-10
Publication statusPublished - 2019
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Open Science is for Aging Research, Too'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this