Failures to replicate ‘high profile’ effects in psychology and behavioural science (e.g., Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012; Hagger et al., 2016; Pashler, Coburn, & Harris, 2012), as well as general issues in the reproducibility of research findings more broadly (Motyl et al., 2017; Open Science Collaboration, 2012, 2015), has resulted in increased scepticism over the value of published evidence in these disciplines and their role in informing practice and solving social problems. The issues around replication and reproducibility of research findings has led to calls for greater transpar-ency from researchers in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of their results (Chambers, Fere-does, Muthukumaraswamy, & Etchells, 2014; Ioannidis, 2014; Laraway, Snycerski, Pradhan, & Huitema, 2019; Munafò et al., 2017; Nosek et al., 2015). The ‘crisis’ of replication in psychology has been attrib-uted to numerous factors, particularly questionable research practices (Motyl et al., 2017) such as selective reporting (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014), p-hacking (Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015), and hypothesizing after results are known (HARK-ing; Kerr, 1998; Rubin, 2017). Numerous methods have been proposed to prevent or minimize researchers unwittingly, or even deliberately, engaging in such practices. Collectively, these methods generally focus on promot-ing greater transparency in the conduct and reporting of research, and guidelines have been drawn up explaining the practice, and disseminated broadly (Cooper, 2011; Ioannidis, 2014; Munafò et al., 2017; Nosek et al., 2015). While these guidelines have been advocated and endorsed by an increasing number of high-profile organizations (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2019; Association of Psychological Science, 2019), universal uptake present considerable challenges. Health psychology, as a relatively new and forward-looking discipline, is in a unique position to lead the way in adopting and promoting open science recommendations. At Health Psychology Review,a flagship journal of the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS), and a leading international forum for world-class reviews and research syntheses in the field, we have embraced open science and transparency. We have made a series of changes to our submission requirements so that the journal is at the forefront of open science approaches to research dissemination and, as always, with the vision of publishing results that are not only of high quality, but also trustworthy and credible. In this editorial I outline some of the changes we have made to our editorial policies to promote open science and maximize transparency of the research published in the journal.