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 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 An Agenda for Open Science in Communication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Dienlin ◽  
Niklas Johannes ◽  
Nicholas David Bowman ◽  
Philipp K Masur ◽  
Sven Engesser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Replication Crisis

Abstract In the last 10 years, many canonical findings in the social sciences appear unreliable. This so-called “replication crisis” has spurred calls for open science practices, which aim to increase the reproducibility, replicability, and generalizability of findings. Communication research is subject to many of the same challenges that have caused low replicability in other fields. As a result, we propose an agenda for adopting open science practices in Communication, which includes the following seven suggestions: (1) publish materials, data, and code; (2) preregister studies and submit registered reports; (3) conduct replications; (4) collaborate; (5) foster open science skills; (6) implement Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines; and (7) incentivize open science practices. Although in our agenda we focus mostly on quantitative research, we also reflect on open science practices relevant to qualitative research. We conclude by discussing potential objections and concerns associated with open science practices.

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 Integrationist reflections on the place of dialogue in our communicational universe

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Social World ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
The Social ◽  
Main Flaw

Abstract Roy Harris identifies the “main flaw” in J. L. Austin’s account of language as a “failure to consider to what extent being able to ‘do things with words’ is parasitic on being able to do things without them”. Harris’s comment here serves as a springboard for a critical evaluation of communicational theories based around “talk-in-interaction” or dialogic principles. The primacy thereby given to linguistic interaction arguably entails a mystification of communication processes and the dis-integration of the social world into which our communicational experiences are intervowen. Consequently, the ghost of segregationism, in the shape of Harris’s “fallacy of verbalism”, continues to haunt, at times faintly, at times aggressively, the assumptions and methodologies of the approaches in question.

scholarly journals Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Olalla-Soler
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Future ◽  
Academic Practices ◽  
Core Features ◽  
Publishing Practices

This article offers an overview of open science and open-science practices and their applications to translation and interpreting studies (TIS). Publications on open science in different disciplines were reviewed in order to define open science, identify academic publishing practices emerging from the core features of open science, and discuss the limitations of such practices in the humanities and the social sciences. The compiled information was then contextualised within TIS academic publishing practices based on bibliographic and bibliometric data. The results helped to identify what open-science practices have been adopted in TIS, what problems emerge from applying some of these practices, and in what ways such practices could be fostered in our discipline. This article aims to foster a debate on the future of TIS publishing and the role that open science will play in the discipline in the upcoming years.

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.

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 Open to Whom? Calling for a Science-Education Specific Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Rosenberg ◽  
Aaron Kessler ◽  
Rasheda Likely
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Education Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Education Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Specific Manner ◽  
Science Educators ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Do So

Open science has become a part of the discourse around how we conduct science education research, but the ideas expressed in broad calls for expanding open science may not be those that are the most salient to or best starting points for science education scholars interested in opening their work. In our view, doing open science in science education requires a reimagination of what we as a community want based on the assets (e.g., open curricula and a strong and engaged practitioner community interested in research) and barriers (e.g., limited knowledge on the part of researchers about open science and limited training opportunities) science educators face. Our thesis is that we can bolster both science education and open science at the same time by a) thinking more broadly about for whom and how we consider access to our work and b) considering the social sides of science education and open science. We conclude with a call to continue to expand open science efforts in science education but to do so in a science education-specific manner and in a way that will enhance the likelihood that open science practices become a central and sustainable part of our scholarship.

scholarly journals Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research*

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Humphreys ◽  
Neil A Lewis ◽  
Katherine Sender ◽  
Andrea Stevenson Won
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Equity And Inclusion

Abstract Recent initiatives toward open science in communication have prompted vigorous debate. In this article, we draw on qualitative and interpretive research methods to expand the key priorities that the open science framework addresses, namely producing trustworthy and quality research. This article contributes to communication research by integrating qualitative methodological literature with open communication science research to identify five broader commitments for all communication research: validity, transparency, ethics, reflexivity, and collaboration. We identify key opportunities where qualitative and quantitative communication scholars can leverage the momentum of open science to critically reflect on and improve our knowledge production processes. We also examine competing values that incentivize dubious practices in communication research, and discuss several metascience initiatives to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field and value multiple ways of knowing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document