Open Science Now: A Response to Commentaries on Van Til et al. (2025)

We respond to commentaries on our article. We clarify several misunderstandings, expand on several issues, and discuss directions the field might take to remedy the issues it faces. Specifically, we note that the replication or credibility crisis, in large part, reflects concerns around evaluability; the field cannot determine the severity (i.e., rigor) of the tests to which claims have been subjected. We attempt to correct the idea that training in open science is but one of many training needs. We note that training in factors contributing to the credibility crisis is just good research-methods training and that transparency is necessary for rigorous science and should take precedence over any content course. Finally, we suggest that members, particularly senior members, of the field are currently capable of powerfully influencing the behavior of the field in such a way as to dramatically increase valuation of and engagement in Open Science practices.