Social scientists have recently been reengaged in a debate regarding the use of null hypothesis testing and the use of p-value cutoffs for determining the acceptance of research observations into the existing literature (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). An important consideration for the type of null hypothesis testing used in the field of Communication is sampling (Ioannidis, 2005). Null hypothesis testing is predicated on the use of random sampling (Fisher, 1937); however, much of the work done in the field uses convenience samples. Convenience sampling is an acceptable choice if findings are replicated across varied samples. Yet, the structure of the publishing system in the field of Communication (and beyond) discourages the replication of important communication findings. One concern is that if the replication results are nonsignificant it may be difficult to publish the results (Levine, Asada, & Carpenter, 2009). Another is that reviewers may deem the replication results insufficiently “novel” for publication. Scholars are rewarded within their field and discipline by greater numbers of published findings. Thus, it is costly for scholars to invest time and energy in the replication of Communication findings.
This Special Issue seeks to take a step towards encouraging quality replication of important findings in the field of Communication. We are soliciting proposals of replication studies. If your proposed study is accepted for inclusion in this special issue, we are committed to publishing the replication regardless of the significance level or effect size of the results (Caveat: Editorial decisions still apply. Final papers must have high quality writing and appropriately conducted studies and analyses. Revisions may be requested).
Submission Instructions
Proposals for inclusion in this Special Issue must include the following:
A warrant for the replication the author’s wish to pursue. The author’s should make a strong case for why this particular study is important and relevant to the field of communication. Studies that originated from scholars in Communication Departments and/or were published in Communication journals will be given priority. However, strong cases for studies originating outside of the field of Communication that have been important scholarly contributions to the field will also be considered.
A detailed plan for how the replication will be carried out. Proposals should outline the original data collection and explain how closely their replication will follow the original method and where it will deviate. Deviations should occur only out of necessity and ideal proposals will follow the original method as closely as possible. This plan should include sampling procedures (including a power analysis—we recommend G*Power http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html) and identify and potential challenges for completing the study.
A list of what analyses the authors intend to conduct. The original analyses from the original study must be included in the proposed list (as well as the final paper). However, authors may propose additional variables (perhaps proposed mediators or moderators) or more sophisticated analyses than were conducted in the original study.
We will consider already conducted studies. In these cases the proposal should explain how the study did and did not exactly follow the method and analyses of the original work(s). These proposals should still include an adequate warrant for why this particular replication is important. Authors should still follow the proposal guidelines but make it clear that the study has already been conducted. Do not send full papers at this time.
Proposals should be no more than four double-spaced pages (approximately two pages for the warrant, one page for methods, and one half page for analyses. Proposals should be blinded for peer review. Submit proposals to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rcst
Proposals will be due March 31, 2017.
Proposal acceptance/rejections will be sent out during the month of May 2017. Approximately 10 to 12 proposals will be accepted for this issue.
Final papers will be due to the editors by January 31, 2018. Projects that do not meet this deadline will likely not continue to be considered for publication.
Final papers should be approximately 10 to 14 double-spaced pages in APA style, including references and figures.
Thank you for considering submission to this Special Issue!
Editorial information
Guest Editor: Bree McEwan, DePaul University ([email protected])
Guest Editor: David Westerman, North Dakota State University ([email protected])
Guest Editor: Christopher J. Carpenter, Western Illinois University ([email protected])
Editor: Kenneth Lachlan, University of Connecticut ([email protected])