scholarly journals Tracing the Adoption and Effects of Open Science in Communication Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Important Work ◽  
P Values ◽  
H Index ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Over Time

A significant paradigm shift is underway in communication research as open science practices (e.g., preregistration, open materials) are becoming more prevalent. The current work identified how much the field has embraced such practices and evaluated their impact on authors (e.g., citation rates). We collected 10,517 papers across 26 journals from 2010-2020, observing that 5.1% of papers used or mentioned open science practices. Communication research has seen the rate of non-significant p-values (ps > .055) increasing with the adoption of open science over time, but p-values just below p < .05 have not reduced with open science adoption. Open science adoption was unrelated to citation rate at the article level; however, it was inversely related to the journals’ h-index. Our results suggest communication organizations and scholars have important work ahead to make open science more mainstream. We close with suggestions to increase open science adoption for the field at large.

scholarly journals Tracing the Adoption and Effects of Open Science in Communication Research*

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M Markowitz ◽  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Important Work ◽  
P Values ◽  
H Index ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Over Time

Abstract A significant paradigm shift is underway in communication research as open science practices (e.g., preregistration, open materials) are becoming more prevalent. The current work identified how much the field has embraced such practices and evaluated their impact on authors (e.g., citation rates). We collected 10,517 papers across 26 journals from 2010 to 2020, observing that 5.1% of papers used or mentioned open science practices. Communication research has seen the rate of nonsignificant p-values (p > .055) increasing with the adoption of open science over time, but p-values just below p < .05 have not reduced with open science adoption. Open science adoption was unrelated to citation rate at the article level; however, it was inversely related to the journals’ h-index. Our results suggest communication organizations and scholars have important work ahead to make open science more mainstream. We close with suggestions to increase open science adoption for the field at large.

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

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.

scholarly journals The frequent insignificance of a “significant” P-value

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McGiffin ◽  
Geoff Cumming ◽  
Paul Myles
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
P Value ◽  
Conditional Probabilities ◽  
Null Hypothesis Significance Testing ◽  
P Values ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Strength Of Evidence

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) and p-values are widespread in the cardiac surgical literature but are frequently misunderstood and misused. The purpose of the review is to discuss major disadvantages of p-values and suggest alternatives. We describe diagnostic tests, the prosecutor’s fallacy in the courtroom, and NHST, which involve inter-related conditional probabilities, to help clarify the meaning of p-values, and discuss the enormous sampling variability, or unreliability, of p-values. Finally, we use a cardiac surgical database and simulations to explore further issues involving p-values. In clinical studies, p-values provide a poor summary of the observed treatment effect, whereas the three- number summary provided by effect estimates and confidence intervals is more informative and minimises over-interpretation of a “significant” result. P-values are an unreliable measure of strength of evidence; if used at all they give only, at best, a very rough guide to decision making. Researchers should adopt Open Science practices to improve the trustworthiness of research and, where possible, use estimation (three-number summaries) or other better techniques.

scholarly journals Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251268
Author(s):  
Russell T. Warne ◽  
Sam Golightly ◽  
Makai Black
Keyword(s):  
Creative Thinking ◽  
Divergent Thinking ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Intelligence Test ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Suitable Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Open Materials

Psychologists have investigated creativity for 70 years, and it is now seen as being an important construct, both scientifically and because of its practical value to society. However, several fundamental unresolved problems persist, including a suitable definition of creativity and the ability of psychometric tests to measure divergent thinking—an important component of creativity—in a way that aligns with theory. It is this latter point that this registered report is designed to address. We propose to administer two divergent thinking tests (the verbal and figural versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; TTCT) with an intelligence test (the International Cognitive Ability Resource test; ICAR). We will then subject the subscores from these tests to confirmatory factor analysis to test which of nine theoretically plausible models best fits the data. When this study is completed, we hope to better understand whether the degree to which the TTCT and ICAR measure distinct constructs. This study will be conducted in accordance with all open science practices, including pre-registration, open data and syntax, and open materials (with the exception of copyrighted and confidential test stimuli).

scholarly journals Open Communication Science: A Primer on Why and Some Recommendations for How

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Anthony Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Social World ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
The Social ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
Current Article

Communication scientists devote large amounts of resources to conducting studies to improve our understanding of the social world, in hopes that our efforts contribute to improving people’s life out-comes. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the process by which our research is conducted is not always clear in journal articles or books reporting our research. This lack of process-insight (a) limits our ability to build on each other’s research, (b) limits our holistic understanding of communication processes, and (c) limits the ability of consumers of our research to put it into practice. The current article discusses recent methodological advances designed to address these issues – advances in open science practices. I provide a brief primer on the philosophy behind open science and its relevance for communication research, then provide recommendations for both novice and expert researchers to implement open science practices at multiple steps of the research pipeline.

scholarly journals Transparency, Documentation, and Open Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 199-200
Author(s):  
Derek Isaacowitz
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Sample Size Justification ◽  
Open Materials ◽  
Do So

Abstract Some GSA journals are especially interested in promoting transparency and open science practices, reflecting how some subdisciplines in aging are moving toward open science practices faster than others. In this talk, I will consider the transparency and open science practices that seem most relevant to aging researchers, such as preregistration, open data, open materials and code, sample size justification and analytic tools for considering null effects. I will also discuss potential challenges to implementing these practices as well as reasons why it is important to do so despite these challenges. The focus will be on pragmatic suggestions for researchers planning and conducting studies now that they hope to publish later.

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

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.

scholarly journals Replication and Open Science in Applied Linguistics Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McManus
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Applied Linguistics ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Theory Building ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
New Research ◽  
Open Materials

This chapter addresses the role and place of replication research and open science practices in advancing theory building and new research directions in the field of applied linguistics. The chapter begins by describing what replication research is, what the most common types of replication study are, and why carrying out replication matters. Close attention is paid throughout to the ways in which replication benefits from and contributes to a variety of open science initiatives, including open materials, open access and preprints, and preregistration.

scholarly journals The Science of Open (Communication) Science: Toward an Evidence-Driven Understanding of Quality Criteria in Communication Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Freiling ◽  
Nicole M Krause ◽  
Dietram A Scheufele ◽  
Kaiping Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Social Media Data ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Media Data

Abstract Paralleling very visible debates in psychology, some parts of the communication field have recently pushed for a wholesale endorsement of the principles of open science and its practices, including a particular focus on replicability and reproducibility as quality criteria. Unfortunately, these discussions have been plagued by a set of at least 3 interrelated problems: A lack of conceptual clarity when defining open science-related challenges to communication scholarship; the irony of using intuition rather than evidence when trying to improve communication science; and our field’s surprising lack of attention to nonreplicability in social media data as one of our field’s most rapidly growing data sources. In response to these problem areas, we argue that communication as a field proceed empirically as it applies open science practices to different subfields in communication and end our essay with pathways forward for a science of open (communication) science.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert N. Bakker ◽  
Kokil Jaidka ◽  
Timothy Dörr ◽  
Neil Fasching ◽  
Yphtach Lelkes
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions ◽  
Large Survey

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document