At the same time, we find ourselves navigating structural challenges. GEP has been operating under a Diamond Open Access model with a non-profit publisher. While this model ensures free access for both authors and readers, it is also inherently resource-constrained and vulnerable to funding cuts. Recent developments indicate that the financial basis of the PsychOpen platform is no longer stable. As a result, all journals currently hosted within this infrastructure, including GEP, are now required to identify a new publishing home. We have therefore decided to temporarily pause new submissions until a sustainable solution is secured. Importantly, manuscripts currently under review will continue to be processed as planned, and all published articles will remain permanently archived through PsychArchives, ensuring their long-term accessibility.

We are actively seeking a new publisher who shares our commitment to Diamond Open Access and can provide the necessary infrastructure, including copyediting and website support. We welcome conversations with potential partners who are interested in supporting this model.

Finally, we would like to be transparent about the current production pipeline. As is common in Diamond Open Access publishing, limited resources may lead to delays in copyediting and production. Accepted manuscripts can be made available online in their accepted form to ensure timely dissemination, with full copyediting and formatting to follow.

It has always been GEP’s mission and vision to promote Diversity and Open Science in Environmental Psychology. However, we want to nuance our understanding of Open Science, especially its role in qualitative research.

GEP supports Open Science but recognises that openness must look different in quantitative and qualitative research. Although the overarching aim of Open Science is the democratisation and transparency of research (UNESCO, 2021), Open Science is often associated with narrower practices for verifying research findings, such as preregistration and open data. Preregistration and open data are important for the rigour and reproducibility of quantitative research, and GEP will continue to promote these practices where appropriate.

Many researchers are concerned that Open Science verification practices are increasingly being mandated for all research, and that insufficient account is taken of different research traditions and the considerable variation that exists both within and between quantitative and qualitative methods (Class et al., 2021; Guzzo et al., 2022; Kirschner et al., 2023; Pownall, 2025; Prosser et al., 2023). We believe that the research frontier advances through the ways in which different disciplinary perspectives and methods nuance and challenge existing views. Variations in methods and approaches are critical for scientific development, and lead to richer science and a deeper understanding of the importance of culture and context (Valsiner et al., 2017). Therefore, Open Science practices must be tailor-made for different methodological approaches.

Practices such as preregistration and open data are designed to enable verification of research findings. These verification-oriented practices align with positivist epistemologies but are not always compatible with interpretive qualitative research, where knowledge is context-dependent, co-created, and shaped by the researcher’s positionality (Pownall, 2025; Steltenpohl et al., 2023; Willig, 2021). Within epistemic logics for qualitative research, independent verification of decontextualised data is of limited relevance, whereas openness, in the form of discussing one’s scholarly position, role, and background, is absolutely fundamental. This is a practice already central to qualitative research: reflexivity (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003; Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). In qualitative research, research questions need to remain flexible and open, and the data are often too sensitive and context-dependent to be shared (Pownall, 2025).

To address this we plan to: 1) update our webpage on GEP’s Open Science practices to clarify that the requirements for preregistration and open data and materials apply only to quantitative, hypothetico-deductive research, where these practices are appropriate for verification. Qualitative research conducted within different epistemologies with the aim of understanding phenomena in particular contexts should not have to be preregistered or share data for epistemological reasons (some qualitative researchers preregister for other reasons or share their data for reuse if the data are not too sensitive). Rather, they should follow practices aligned with their epistemological approach: Examples include reflexivity, positionality, and transparency in methodological and analytical decisions. Other openness criteria include transparency in methodology and analysis (Pratt et al., 2020), and user participation that engages a broad range of stakeholders (Trivedi & Wykes, 2002).

In addition, in GEP, we have planned to: 2) expand GEP’s word limit for qualitative papers, from 5750 to 7000 words, to make it clear that we welcome qualitative papers. To support GEP’s aim of diversity in research, we consider it important to welcome studies that demonstrate cultural differences in environmental psychology and employ methodological approaches to uncover them, rather than seeking universal solutions. More critical, diverse and context-sensitive perspectives are needed (Anjum & Aziz, 2026). According to UNESCO’s (2021) Open Science recommendations, open dialogue with other knowledge systems, including indigenous peoples, marginalised scholars, and local communities, is central to Open Science. This is also in line with GEP’s Open Science aims.

Artificial intelligence has become a transformative force in society and in researcPh. We support the AI-policy developed by APA: APA Journals policy on generative AI: Additional guidance.

We want to emphasise that authors are responsible for the accuracy of the information in their article, and must verify it, including any citations generated by an AI tool. Authors may use AI tools but must disclose their use for specific purposes, such as editing. Use of AI is prohibited in the peer review process to protect both the integrity of the process and the confidentiality of authors’ work.

We also support the position article against the use of AI in reflexive qualitative research (Jowsey et al., 2025). AI is rejected in these analyses because interpretative qualitative research should remain a human practice. Meaning-making is a human practice. This paper also stresses the environmental impact of the AI corporations and their disproportionate effects in the Global South.

We look forward to securing a new publishing home for GEP and to continuing to build this journal together with our community.

Yours sincerely,

Isabel Richter, Mete Sefa Uysal and Åshild Lappegard Hauge