How communication scholars see open scholarship

References

• Abele-Brehm, A. E., Gollwitzer, M., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Steinberg, U. (2018). Umfrage zu den DGPs-Datenmanagementempfehlungen [Survey on German Psychological Association’s data management recommendations]. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1212261.
   Google Scholar
• Abele-Brehm, A. E., Gollwitzer, M., Steinberg, U., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2019). Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing: A survey among members of the German psychological society. Social Psychology, 50(4), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn, S. J., Johnson, B. K., Krcmar, M., & Reinecke, L. (2021). Overcoming challenges and leveraging opportunities. Media Psychology, 24(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.1875846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur, P. L., & Hearn, L. (2021). Toward open research: A narrative review of the challenge and opportunities for open humanities. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 827–853. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahlai, C., Bartlett, L. J., Burgio, K., Fournier, A., Keiser, C., Poisot, T., & Whitney, K. S. (2019). Open science isn’t always open to all scientists. American Scientist, 107(2), 78. https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, B. N., Kokil, J., Dörr, T., Fasching, N., & Lelkes, Y. (2021). Questionable and open research practices: Attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, B. R. (2020). Making communication scholarship less WEIRD. Southern Communication Journal, 86(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2020.1861078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baždarić, K., Vrkić, I., Arh, E., Mavrinac, M., Marković, M. G., Bilić-Zulle, L., Stojanovski, J., & Malički, M. (2021). Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0244529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosman, J., de Jonge, H., Kramer, B., & Sondervan, J. (2021). Advancing open access in the Netherlands after 2020: From quantity to quality. Insights, 34(1), http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.545
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., & Goodboy, A. K. (2020). Evolving considerations and empirical approaches to construct validity in communication science. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1792791
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., & Keene, R. J. (2018). A layered framework for considering open science practices. Communication Research Reports, 35(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., & Spence, P. (2020). Challenges and best practices associated with sharing research materials and research data for communication scholars. Communication Studies, 71(4), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1799488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends around Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. http://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
   Google Scholar
• Carleton, W. M. (1979). A rhetorical rationale for interdisciplinary graduate study in communication. Communication Education, 28(4), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527909378375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Open Science. (n.d.). Registered Reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices. Retrieved from https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, P., Kuo, R., Grubbs, V., & McIlwain, C. (2018). #Communicatinosowhite. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, A., & Greenhow, C. (2019). Citizen-scholars: Social media and the changing nature of scholarship. Publications, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010011
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Stenseth, N. S. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are sharing the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047
   Google Scholar
• Childs, S., McLeod, J., Lomas, E., & Cook, G. (2014). Opening research data: Issues and opportunities. Records Management Journal, 24(2), https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0005
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, G., Wang, Z., Levy Paluck, E., Swanson, N., Birke, D., Miguel, E., & Littman, R. (2020). Open science practices are on the rise: The state of social science (3S) survey (No. 106; working paper series). Center for effective global action. University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hx0207r.
   Google Scholar
• Colavizza, G., Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Staden, I., Whitaker, K., & McGillivray, B. (2020). The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416
   Google Scholar
• de Knecht, S. (2020, June 29). Dutch open science deal primarily benefits Elsevier. Science Guide. Retrieved from https://www.scienceguide.nl/2020/06/open-science-deal-benefits-elsevier/
   Google Scholar
• del Rio Riande, G., Tóth-Czifra, E., Wuttke, U., & Moranville, Y. (2020). Openmethods: A compass for a more open digital humanities. Preprints, 2020030016. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202003.0016.v1
   Google Scholar
• Dienlin, T., Johannes, N., Bowman, N. D., Masur, P. K., Engesser, S., Kümpel, A. S., Lukito, J., Bier, L. M., Zhang, R., Johnson, B. K., Huskey, R., Schneider, F. M., Breuer, J., Parry, D. A., Vermeulen, I., Fisher, J. T., Banks, J., Weber, R., Ellis, D. A., … de Vreese, C. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutta, M., Ramasubramanian, S., Barrett, M., Elers, C., Sarwatay, D., Raghunath, P., Kaur, S., Dutta, D., Jayan, P., Rahman, M., Tallam, E., Roy, S., Falnikar, A., Johnson, G. M., Mandel, I., Dutta, U., Basnyat, I., Soriano, C., Pavarala, V., … Zapata, D. (2021). Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else, H. (2021). A guide to Plan S: The open-access initiative shaking up science publishing. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00883-6
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2021). Horizon Europe, open science : early knowledge and data sharing, and open collaboration, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/18252.
   Google Scholar
• European Science Foundation. (2022). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/.
   Google Scholar
• Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 17–47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
   Google Scholar
• Fecher, B., Friesike, S., & Hebing, M. (2015). What drives academic data sharing? PLoS One, 10(2), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J., Pearce, K. E., Massanari, A. L., Riles, J. M., Szulc, Ł, Ranjit, Y. S., Trevisan, F., Soriano, C. R., Vitak, J., Arora, P., Ahn, S. J., Alper, M., Gambino, A., Gonzalez, C., Lynch, T., Williamson, L. D., & Gonzales, A. L. (2021). Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 764–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013, 14 November). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/forking.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• German Psychological Society. (2022). What is the German Psychological Society (DGPs)? https://www.dgps.de/en/about-dgps/.
   Google Scholar
• Given, L. M., & Saumure, K. (2008). Trustworthiness. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 896). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n470
   Google Scholar
• Goodboy, A. K., & Martin, M. M. (2020). Omega over alpha for reliability estimation of unidimensional communication measures. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(4), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1846135
   Google Scholar
• Haven, T. L., & Van Grootel, D. L. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But … . Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M., Bishop, D. V. M., Nichols, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey of barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Sciences, 1(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2515245917751886
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Digital Research & Education. (n.d.). Principal components (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with SPSS. https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/seminars/efa-spss/
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, A. M., Büthe, T., Arjona, A., Arriola, L. R., Bellin, E., Bennett, A., Björkman, L., Bleich, E., Elkins, Z., Fairfield, T., Gaikwad, N., Greitens, S. C., Hawkesworth, M., Herrera, V., Herrera, Y. M., Johnson, K. S., Karakoç, E., Koivu, K., Kreuzer, M, … Yashar, D. J. (2021). The qualitative transparency deliberations: Insights and implications. Perspectives on Politics, 19(1), 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, D. M., & Totzkay, D. (2019). We do publish (conceptual) replications (sometimes): Publication trends in communication science, 2007-2016. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1632218
   Google Scholar
• Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158
   Google Scholar
• Knöchelmann, M. (2019). Open science in the humanities, or: Open humanities? Publications, 7(4), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leiner, D. J. (2019). Too fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods, 13(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Drenth, P. J. D., & Noort, E. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diedrick Stapel. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1569964/component/file_1569966/content.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, N. A. (2019). Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longo, D. L., & Drazen, J. M. (2016). Data sharing. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(3), 276–277. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe1516564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, D. M., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: The case of Diederick Stapel. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105937
   Google Scholar
• Markowitz, D. M., Song, H., & Taylor, S. H. (2021). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 739–763. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEwan, B. (2017). Bonferroni correction. In M. Allen (Ed.), Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n45
   Google Scholar
• McEwan, B., Carpenter, C. J., & Westerman, D. (2018). On replication in communication science. Communication Studies, 69(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1464938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreira de Oliveira, T., Jamil Marques, F. P., Veloso Leão, A., de Albuquerque, A., Aidar Prado, J. L., Grohmann, R., Clinio, A., Cogo, D., & Soares Guazina, L. (2021). Towards an inclusive agenda of open science for communication research: A Latin American approach. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Programme Open Science. (n.d.). What is open science? https://www.openscience.nl/en/what-is-open-science.
   Google Scholar
• Neff, M. W. (2021). How academic science gave its soul to the publishing industry. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(2), 35–43. https://issues.org/how-academic-science-gave-its-soul-to-the-publishing-industry/.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardo Martínez, C. I., & Poveda, A. C. (2018). Knowledge and perceptions of open science among researchers—A case study for Colombia. Information, 9(11), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9110292
   Google Scholar
• Park, H. S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00824.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published 1934).
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., Morales, M., Landrum, R., Shi, M., Minnier, J., Vasilevsky, N. A., & Champieux, R. E. (2019). Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1591277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinke, E. M., & Wuttke, A. (2021). Open minds, open methods: Transparency and inclusion in pursuit of better scholarship. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why ordinal variables can (almost) always be treated as continuous variables: Clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education, 5, 375. http://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, A., Scharkow, M., & Wang, Z. J. (2021). Opening a conversation on open communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singal, J. (2016, October 12). Inside psychology’s ‘methodological terrorism’ debate. The Cut. https://www.thecut.com/2016/10/inside-psychologys-methodological-terrorism-debate.html.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor & Francis. (2022). The Center for Open Science and promoting openness in research. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/topguidelines/.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira de Silva, J. A. (2016). Vigilantism in science: The need and the risks. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), http://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p9
   Google Scholar
• Toribio-Flórez, D., Anneser, L., de Oliveira-Lopes, F. N., Pallandt, M., Tunn, I., & Windel, H. (2021). Where do early career researchers stand on open science practices? A survey within the Max Planck society. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.586992
   Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E. L., Ebersole, C. R., Chartier, C. R., Errington, T. M., Kidwell, M. C., Lai, C. K., McCarthy, R. J., Riegelman, A., Silberzahn, R., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). Scientific utopia III: Crowdsourcing science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619850561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., Strycharz, J., Trilling, D., & Welbers, K. (2019). Toward open computational communication science: A practical road map for reusable data and code. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3935–3954. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/10631/2765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verfaellie, M., & McGwin, J. (2011). The case of Diederik Stapel. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Dworkin, J. D., Zhou, D., Stiso, J., Falk, E. B., Bassett, D. S., Zurn, P., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2021). Gendered citation practices in the field of communication. https://psyarxiv.com/ywrcq/.
   Google Scholar
• Whitaker, K., & Guest, O. (2020). #Bropenscience is broken science. The Psychologist, 33, 34–37. https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-33/november-2020/bropenscience-broken-science.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf, P. K. (1988). Science needs vigilance not vigilantes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 260(13), 1939–1940. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03410130147042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar