How open is communication science? Open-science principles in the field

References

• Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S., & Matsuo, A. (2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, D. (2019). Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility. Nature, 568(7753), 435–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01307-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blohowiak, B. B., Cohoon, J., de-Wit, L., Eich, E., Farach, F. J., Hasselman, F., Holcombe, A. O., Humphreys, M., Lewis, M., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Badges to acknowledge open practices. https://osf.io/tvyxz/.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (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. R. (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
• Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<635::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-H
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, S., Zhu, H., Jahn, N., Boettiger, C., & Ram, K. (2020). rcrossref: Client for Various “CrossRef” “APIs.” https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = rcrossref.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, C., & Grill, C. (2020). The highs in communication research: Research topics with high supply, high popularity, and high prestige in high-impact journals. Communication Research, 49(5), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220944790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, M., Hu, P., & Mak, K. F. M. (2020). Mediation analysis and warranted inferences in media and communication research: Examining research design in communication journals from 1996 to 2017. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(2), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020961519.
   Web of Science ®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. H. (2020). 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
• Domahidi, E., Yang, J., Niemann-Lenz, J., & Reinecke, L. (2019). Outlining the way ahead in computational communication science: An introduction to the IJOC special section on “computational methods for communication science: Toward a strategic roadmap.”. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3876–3884. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10533/2761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, M. G., & Erlandson, P. (2014). A taxonomy of motives to cite. Social Studies of Science, 44(4), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714522871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, R.-E., Chang, K.-W., Hsieh, C.-J., Wang, X.-R., & Lin, C.-J. (2008). LIBLINEAR: A library for large linear classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 1871–1874. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10 .5555/1390681.1442794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidler, F., Thorn, F. S., Kambouris, S., van den Akker, O., Head, A., de Jonge, M., & Rüffer, F. (2018, March 19). Database of articles with open science badges. OSF. https://osf.io/jsva7/.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J., Pearce, K. E., Massanari, A. L., Riles, J. M., Szulc, Ł, Ranjit, Y. S., Trevisan, F., Soriano, C. R. R., Vitak, J., Arora, P., Ahn, S. J. (., Alper, M., Gambino, A., Gonzalez, C., Lynch, T., Williamson, L. D., & Gonzales, L. A. (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
• Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLOS ONE, 5(10), e13636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gollwitzer, M. (2020). DFG priority Program SPP 2317 proposal: A meta-scientific program to analyze and optimize replicability in the behavioral, social, and cognitive sciences (META-REP). PsychArchives, https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.3010
   Google Scholar
• Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2012). Open science: A new “trust technology”? Science Communication, 34(5), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012443021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günther, E., & Domahidi, E. (2017). What communication scholars write about: An analysis of 80 years of research in high-impact journals. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3052–3071. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(4), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0606079
   Google Scholar
• Hilbert, M., Barnett, G., Blumenstock, J., Contractor, N., Diesner, J., Frey, S., González-Bailón, S., Lamberso, P., Pan, J., Peng, T.-Q., Shen, C., Smaldino, P. E., van Atteveldt, W., Waldherr, A., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J.-H. (2019). Computational communication science: A methodological catalyzer for a maturing discipline. International Journal of Communication, 19, 3912–3934. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10675
   Google Scholar
• Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L.-S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., Errington, T. M., Fiedler, S., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLOS Biology, 14(5), e1002456. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Hofelich Mohr, A., Ijzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158
   Google Scholar
• Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š, Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
   Google Scholar
• Kreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. L. (2020). Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(43), eabd4563. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489
   Google Scholar
• Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., Freelon, D., Gonzalez-Bailon, S., King, G., Margetts, H., Nelson, A., Salganik, M. J., Strohmaier, M., Vespignani, A., & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060–1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, J. A. (2021). Improving the replicability and generalizability of inferences in quantitative communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1979421
   Google Scholar
• Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. University Press.
   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
• Matthes, J., Marquart, F., Naderer, B., Arendt, F., Schmuck, D., & Adam, K. (2015). Questionable research practices in experimental communication research: A systematic analysis from 1980 to 2013. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334
   Web of Science ®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
• Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., Lewandowsky, S., Morey, C. C., Newman, D. P., Schönbrodt, F. D., Vanpaemel, W., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2016). The peer reviewers’ openness initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150547. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Reinemann, C., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., & Schindler, J. (2019). Der digitale Wandel der Wissensordnung. Theorierahmen für die Analyse von Wahrheit, Wissen und Rationalität in der öffentlichen Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 67(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-2-167
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716–aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Research data policy. Academic. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/authors/preparing_your_manuscript/research-data-policy.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H., You, S., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Informal data citation for data sharing and reuse is more common than formal data citation in biomedical fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(11), 1346–1354. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007). Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLOS ONE, 2(3), e308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plutzer, E. (2019). Publication ethics, transparency, and replication: New policies at POQ. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(2), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puschmann, C., & Pentzold, C. (2021). A field comes of age: Tracking research on the internet within communication studies, 1994 to 2018. Internet Histories, 5(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2020.1749805.
   Google Scholar
• Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.-C., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojecki, A., & Meraz, S. (2016). Rumors and factitious informational blends: The role of the web in speculative politics. New Media & Society, 18(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sansone, S.-A., McQuilton, P., Rocca-Serra, P., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Izzo, M., Lister, A. L., & Thurston, M. (2019). FAIRsharing as a community approach to standards, repositories and policies. Nature Biotechnology, 37(4), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0080-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., Eberl, J.-M., & Eisele, O. (2020). Less fragmented than we thought? Toward clarification of a subdisciplinary linkage in communication science, 2010–2019. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traag, V. A. (2021). Inferring the causal effect of journals on citations. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(2), 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00128
   Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., Althaus, S., & Wessler, H. (2021). The trouble with sharing your privates: Pursuing ethical open science and collaborative research across national jurisdictions using sensitive data. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1744780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., & Peng, T.-Q. (2018). When communication meets computation: Opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in computational communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1458084
   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, 19, 3935–3954. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10631
   Google Scholar
• Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venables, W. N., Ripley, B. D., & Venables, W. N. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Waisbord, S. (2019). Communication: A post-discipline. Polity.
   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. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180
   PubMedGoogle Scholar