Only one study in a decade of Slovak social science was preregistered.

People often worry that social science studies lack transparency and are hard to verify. Rather than relying on surveys where scientists describe their own habits, researchers inspected actual published papers to see how well they shared their work. They analyzed hundreds of Slovak social science papers published over a ten-year span to track their reporting habits, statistical quality, and transparency. They found that open science practices were very rare and barely improved. Almost no papers shared their raw data or code, almost none registered their plans before starting, and none used Registered Reports. Basic reporting was also weak: most papers failed to explain why they chose their sample sizes, missed key statistical estimates, or left out how they handled missing data. Furthermore, mathematical consistency checks found errors in many reported averages. Overall, poor reporting heavily limits the trustworthiness of this literature.

Why it matters

If researchers cannot see how a study was designed or whether its numbers add up, they cannot trust its conclusions. This analysis of nearly a thousand Slovak social science papers shows that most fail to report basic details like sample size justification or effect sizes. Without that information, the entire field's findings become harder to verify, which matters for anyone who relies on social science to inform policy or public debate.

Questions answered