It has been over 10 years since the replicability crisis and open science movement entered the mainstream of psychology (e.g., Simmons et al., 2011). In that time, psychologists have been identifying and describing the nature of the problems with how we do our science (e.g., a lack of transparency, replicability and diversity) and debating proposed solutions for how to right the course. Two main themes emerged in this conversation: open science as a means to increase transparency and accountability and metascience as a way to identify sources of the observed problems by studying science with its own methods.

However, there seems to be an asymmetric focus across subfields within psychological sciences and previously, only a few papers examining developmental psychology existed. At the same time, the specific conditions of developmental research might make the field particularly vulnerable to findings that cannot form a solid basis for theorising, such as difficulty in recruiting populations leading to small samples and indirect tests leading to large amounts of noise (Davis-Kean & Ellis, 2019; Frank et al., 2017). Thus the field might be at risk of falling behind the latest developments in examining the process of generating knowledge with implications for theory, methods and measurement. This risk stands in contrast with existing open science traditions within developmental science, such as a rich history of data sharing (e.g., making language corpus data publicly available since 1984 on CHILDES; MacWhinney, 2000) and the influential big team science collaboration ManyBabies (Frank et al., 2017).

The purpose of this Special Issue was to provide a forum for work on metascience and open science within developmental psychology. We are very pleased to introduce 16 papers – a mix of empirical reports, commentaries, reviews, methodological articles and theoretical articles.

One of the barriers to adopting open science can be not knowing where to start (Kathawalla et al., 2021). Luckily, this special issue includes several helpful ‘how-to’ guides! Kalandadze and Hart (2022) is a great place to start, with an annotated reading list on open developmental science. Turoman et al. (2022) present a workflow for applying open science principles in a developmental psychology lab, using their own lab as an example. Regarding data analysis, Visser et al. (2023) present a tutorial for using Bayesian sequential testing designs and Woods et al. (2023) present best practices for addressing missing data through multiple imputations.

Several articles address best practices when using different methodologies in developmental psychology. Two articles outline guidelines for applying open science practices to descriptive research (Kosie & Lew-Williams, 2022) and longitudinal research (Petersen et al., 2022), respectively. Kucharský et al. (2022) discuss issues with habituation research and recommendations for improving current practices. Qian et al. (2022) document trends in the use of biomarkers in developmental science and provide a tool for examining individual biomarkers in the literature.

One theme that stands out is the importance of generalisability – how applicable a study's results are to broader groups of people, settings or situations (Kukull & Ganguli, 2012; Parsons et al., 2022). Two papers in this special issue focus on generalisability to broader groups of people. Forbes et al. (2022) highlight the importance of the diversity of participants and researchers, and moving away from the Western ‘norm’. Li et al. (2022) discuss ‘citizen science’ as a tool for increasing the collection of large and diverse samples. Regarding stimuli, Holtz and Papineau (2023) discuss the importance of using varied speakers in stimuli to ensure our results are generalisable.

Another theme that emerges is improving rigour in developmental psychology. Two papers outline how to address issues that apply to much of the published literature in developmental psychology. Shaw and Scheel (2022) discuss the issue of leading - studies not adequately controlling for researchers and/or caregivers influencing the dependent variable and propose some possible controls. St. Pierre et al. (2022) discuss the issue of experimenter identity not being reported or considered, and suggest how researchers can address this issue. Peetz et al. (2023) discuss the benefits of a multiverse approach to data analysis for transparency, examining robustness and theory building.

Lastly, two papers compare developmental psychology to other disciplines. Rochios and Richmond (2022) compare open science practices across different subfields within psychology and find lower open data and open materials for developmental psychology studies compared to cognitive psychology studies. Dykhuis et al. (2023) compare developmental science and personality science, and they outline what the two fields can gain from adopting advances from each other.

Special issues focused on open science have historically been very important in shaping developmental psychology. In fact, two of the key articles included in the annotated reading list by Kalandadze and Hart (2022) are actually from a previous special issue on ‘Replicability, Collaboration, and Best Practices in Infancy Research’ at Infant Behavior and Development (Davis-Kean & Ellis, 2019; Lundwall, 2019). Similarly, the Registered Reports format (Chambers & Tzavella, 2021) has been introduced to developmental audiences through special issues (Syed et al., 2023; Syed & Donnellan, 2020), including one soon to be published in Infant and Child Development. We hope that in the same way, articles from this current special issue will later be considered key articles when thinking and writing about open science and metascience in developmental psychology. From practical ‘how-to’ guides for embracing open science to discussions on improving rigour and addressing issues of generalisability, the contributions in this issue have been informative and thought-provoking. As we navigate the evolving landscape of developmental psychology, embracing open science practices, enhancing methodological rigour, and fostering inclusivity and diversity will be essential for the continued growth and relevance of the field. We therefore hope that the ideas presented here will inspire researchers to conduct more open, rigorous and inclusive developmental science.

自可复制性危机和开放科学运动进入心理学主流以来已经过去了十多年（例如，Simmons et al.,  2011）。那时，心理学家一直在识别和描述我们如何进行科学研究的问题的本质（例如，缺乏透明度、可复制性和多样性），并就如何纠正方向的拟议解决方案进行辩论。这次对话中出现了两个主题：开放科学是提高透明度和问责制的一种手段，而元科学是通过用科学自己的方法研究科学来确定所观察到的问题的根源的一种方法。

然而，心理科学的各个子领域似乎存在着不对称的关注，此前，只有少数研究发展心理学的论文存在。与此同时，发展研究的具体条件可能使该领域特别容易受到无法形成坚实理论基础的发现的影响，例如招募人群困难导致样本量小，间接测试导致大量噪音（Davis- Kean 和 Ellis，  2019；Frank 等人，  2017）。因此，该领域可能面临着落后于对理论、方法和测量影响的知识生成过程的最新发展的风险。这种风险与发展科学中现有的开放科学传统形成鲜明对比，例如丰富的数据共享历史（例如，自 1984 年以来在 CHILDES 上公开语言语料库数据；MacWhinney，  2000）以及有影响力的大团队科学合作 ManyBabies（Frank等人，  2017）。

本期特刊的目的是为发展心理学中的元科学和开放科学工作提供一个论坛。我们非常高兴地向大家介绍 16 篇论文——包括实证报告、评论、评论、方法论文章和理论文章。

采用开放科学的障碍之一可能是不知道从哪里开始（Kathawalla 等人，  2021）。幸运的是，本期特刊包含一些有用的“操作方法”指南！Kalandadze 和 Hart（2022）是一个很好的起点，其中有一份关于开放发展科学的带注释的阅读清单。图罗曼等人。( 2022 ) 提出了在发展心理学实验室中应用开放科学原理的工作流程，以他们自己的实验室为例。关于数据分析，Visser 等人。( 2023 ) 提出了使用贝叶斯顺序测试设计的教程，Woods 等人。( 2023 ) 提出了通过多重插补解决缺失数据的最佳实践。

有几篇文章讨论了在发展心理学中使用不同方法时的最佳实践。两篇文章分别概述了将开放科学实践应用于描述性研究（Kosie & Lew-Williams，2022）和纵向研究（Petersen 等人，  2022）的指南。库查尔斯基等人。（2022）讨论习惯研究的问题以及改进当前实践的建议。钱等人。( 2022 ) 记录了发育科学中生物标志物的使用趋势，并提供了检查文献中个体生物标志物的工具。

一个突出的主题是普遍性的重要性——一项研究的结果如何适用于更广泛的人群、环境或情况（Kukull & Ganguli，  2012；Parsons 等，  2022）。本期特刊中的两篇论文重点讨论了对更广泛人群的普遍性。福布斯等人。（2022）强调参与者和研究人员多样性以及摆脱西方“规范”的重要性。李等人。（2022）讨论“公民科学”作为增加大量和多样化样本收集的工具。关于刺激，Holtz 和 Papineau ( 2023 ) 讨论了在刺激中使用不同说话者的重要性，以确保我们的结果具有普遍性。

出现的另一个主题是提高发展心理学的严谨性。两篇论文概述了如何解决适用于发展心理学中大部分已发表文献的问题。Shaw 和 Scheel ( 2022 ) 讨论了主导研究未能充分控制影响因变量的研究人员和/或护理人员的问题，并提出了一些可能的控制措施。圣皮埃尔等人。( 2022 ) 讨论了实验者身份未被报告或考虑的问题，并建议研究人员如何解决这个问题。皮茨等人。( 2023 ) 讨论多元宇宙数据分析方法对透明度、检验稳健性和理论构建的好处。

最后，两篇论文将发展心理学与其他学科进行了比较。Rochios 和 Richmond ( 2022 ) 比较了心理学中不同子领域的开放科学实践，发现与认知心理学研究相比，发展心理学研究的开放数据和开放材料较低。戴克休斯等人。( 2023 ) 比较了发展科学和人格科学，并概述了这两个领域可以通过相互借鉴进步而获得什么。

历史上，关注开放科学的特殊问题对于塑造发展心理学非常重要。事实上，Kalandadze 和 Hart ( 2022 ) 的带注释阅读列表中包含的两篇关键文章实际上来自《婴儿行为与发展》 (Davis-Kean)上一期关于“婴儿期研究的可复制性、协作和最佳实践”的特刊。 & 埃利斯，  2019 年；伦德沃尔，  2019 年）。同样，注册报告格式（Chambers & Tzavella，  2021）已通过特刊（Syed 等人，  2023；Syed & Donnellan，  2020 ）介绍给发展受众，其中包括即将在《婴儿和儿童发展》杂志上发表的一份报告。我们希望以同样的方式，本期特刊中的文章以后将被视为思考和撰写发展心理学中的开放科学和元科学时的关键文章。从拥抱开放科学的实用“操作方法”指南到关于提高严谨性和解决普遍性问题的讨论，本期的贡献内容丰富且发人深省。当我们探索发展心理学不断发展的格局时，拥抱开放科学实践、增强方法论的严谨性以及促进包容性和多样性对于该领域的持续发展和相关性至关重要。因此，我们希望这里提出的想法能够激励研究人员进行更加开放、严谨和包容的发展科学。