Questionable and open research practices: attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers

Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices are believed to be widespread, evidence for this claim is primarily derived from other disciplines. Before change in communication research can happen, it is important to document the extent to which QRPs are used and whether researchers are open to the changes proposed by the so-called open science agenda. We conducted a large survey among authors of papers published in the top-20 journals in communication science in the last ten years (N=1039). A non-trivial percent of researchers report using one or more QRPs. While QRPs are generally considered unacceptable, researchers perceive QRPs to be common among their colleagues. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices in communication research. We end with a series of recommendations outlining what journals, institutions and researchers can do moving forward.

Download Full-text

Questionable and Open Research Practices: Attitudes and Perceptions among Quantitative Communication Researchers

Journal of Communication ◽

10.1093/joc/jqab031 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Bert N Bakker ◽

Jaidka Kokil ◽

Timothy Dörr ◽

Neil Fasching ◽

Yphtach Lelkes

Keyword(s):

Empirical Work ◽

Open Science ◽

Pluralistic Ignorance ◽

Communication Research ◽

Research Practices ◽

Questionable Research Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Attitudes And Perceptions

Abstract Recent contributions have questioned the credibility of quantitative communication research. While questionable research practices (QRPs) are believed to be widespread, evidence for this belief is, primarily, derived from other disciplines. Therefore, it is largely unknown to what extent QRPs are used in quantitative communication research and whether researchers embrace open research practices (ORPs). We surveyed first and corresponding authors of publications in the top-20 journals in communication science. Many researchers report using one or more QRPs. We find widespread pluralistic ignorance: QRPs are generally rejected, but researchers believe they are prevalent. At the same time, we find optimism about the use of open science practices. In all, our study has implications for theories in communication that rely upon a cumulative body of empirical work: these theories are negatively affected by QRPs but can gain credibility if based upon ORPs. We outline an agenda to move forward as a discipline.

Download Full-text

Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication

Journal of Communication ◽

10.1093/joc/jqab029 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jesse Fox ◽

Katy E Pearce ◽

Adrienne L Massanari ◽

Julius Matthew Riles ◽

Łukasz Szulc ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Science ◽

Research Community ◽

Ethical Principles ◽

Respect For Persons ◽

Communication Research ◽

Research Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

Research Communication ◽

The Future

Abstract The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.

Download Full-text

Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

10.31235/osf.io/bwm7s ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jason Chin ◽

Justin Pickett ◽

Simine Vazire ◽

Alex O. Holcombe

Keyword(s):

Uniform Distribution ◽

Significant Relationship ◽

Open Science ◽

Research Practices ◽

Research Results ◽

Questionable Research Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

Criminological Research ◽

Prevalence Estimates

Objectives. Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers’ opinions of those practices.Methods. We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices. Results. QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs. We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use. Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices.Conclusions. Most quantitative criminologists in our sample use QRPs, and many use multiple QRPs. The substantial prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research. We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

Download Full-text

Opening a Conversation on Open Communication Research

Journal of Communication ◽

10.1093/joc/jqab033 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Adrienne Shaw ◽

Michael Scharkow ◽

Zheng Joyce Wang

Keyword(s):

Open Science ◽

Unintended Consequences ◽

Communication Research ◽

Special Issue ◽

Open Communication ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Diverse Field

Abstract Many disciplines have been debating and enacting a range of policies, procedures, and practices that fall under the umbrella term “open research” or “open science.” Following the publication of “An Agenda for Open Science in Communication”, we invited communication scholars to continue the conversation on what open research practices broadly might mean for our diverse field. Specifically, we sought work that: looked empirically at the need for and impact of open research practices; considered the unintended consequences of calls for open research practices broadly; and that reflected on what such a move would mean for qualitative and humanistic communication research. We hope the collection of articles in this special issue motivates and facilitates an ongoing conversation on open research practices in the field of communication.

Download Full-text

Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Publications ◽

10.3390/publications7040065 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 65 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marcel Knöchelmann

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Scholarly Communication ◽

Open Science ◽

Essential Elements ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Scientific Disciplines ◽

Communication Practices ◽

Do So

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

Download Full-text

Collaboration in Giftedness and Talent Development Research

journal for the education of the gifted ◽

10.1177/0162353220912019 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 91-107

Author(s):

Matthew C. Makel ◽

Kendal N. Smith ◽

Erin M. Miller ◽

Scott J. Peters ◽

Matthew T. McBee

Keyword(s):

Gifted Education ◽

Collaborative Research ◽

Large Scale ◽

Open Science ◽

Accurate Information ◽

Development Research ◽

Research Practices ◽

Science Practices ◽

Research Findings ◽

Potential Improvement

Existing research practices in gifted education have many areas for potential improvement so that they can provide useful, generalizable evidence to various stakeholders. In this article, we first review the field’s current research practices and consider the quality and utility of its research findings. Next, we discuss how open science practices increase the transparency of research so readers can more effectively evaluate its validity. Third, we introduce five large-scale collaborative research models that are being used in other fields and discuss how they could be implemented in gifted education research. Finally, we review potential challenges and limitations to implementing collaborative research models in gifted education. We believe greater use of large-scale collaboration will help the field overcome some of its methodological challenges to help provide more precise and accurate information about gifted education.

Download Full-text

How open science helps researchers succeed

eLife ◽

10.7554/elife.16800 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

Cited By ~ 185

Author(s):

Erin C McKiernan ◽

Philip E Bourne ◽

C Titus Brown ◽

Stuart Buck ◽

Amye Kenall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Source ◽

Open Data ◽

Open Science ◽

Review Literature ◽

Research Practices ◽

Media Attention ◽

Open Research ◽

Job Opportunities ◽

Funding Opportunities

Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.

Download Full-text

A practical guide for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging research

10.1101/039354 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski ◽

Russell A. Poldrack

Keyword(s):

Open Science ◽

Science Data ◽

Research Practices ◽

Practical Advice ◽

The Public ◽

Practical Guide ◽

Open Research

AbstractRecent years have seen an increase in alarming signals regarding the lack of replicability in neuroscience, psychology, and other related fields. To avoid a widespread crisis in neuroimaging research and consequent loss of credibility in the public eye, we need to improve how we do science. This article aims to be a practical guide for researchers at any stage of their careers that will help them make their research more reproducible and transparent while minimizing the additional effort that this might require. The guide covers three major topics in open science (data, code, and publications) and offers practical advice as well as highlighting advantages of adopting more open research practices that go beyond improved transparency and reproducibility.

Download Full-text

Open Research: Examples of good practice, and resources across disciplines

10.31219/osf.io/3r8hb ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Emily Kate Farran ◽

Priya Silverstein ◽

Aminath A. Ameen ◽

Iliana Misheva ◽

Camilla Gilmore

Keyword(s):

Case Studies ◽

Good Practice ◽

Open Data ◽

Open Science ◽

Open Education ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research

Open research is best described as “an umbrella term used to refer to the concepts of openness, transparency, rigor, reproducibility, replicability, and accumulation of knowledge” (Crüwell et al., 2019, p. 3). Although a lot of open research practices have commonly been discussed under the term “open science”, open research applies to all disciplines. If the concept of open research is new to you, it might be difficult for you to determine how you can apply open research practices to your research. The aim of this document is to provide resources and examples of open research practices that are relevant to your discipline. The document lists case studies of open research per discipline, and resources per discipline (organised as: general, open methods, open data, open output and open education).

Download Full-text