Open Science Practices in Communication Research and Reviewing: Overdue or Overrated?

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

While concepts such as public and open research data, replication of research findings, and safeguards against questionable post-hoc analytical practices are tenets of any basic research methods course in communication and related disciplines, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the practice of science is often less open than espoused in principle. Trends such as support for open access to scholarly articles have made research outputs more public, but many call for more open scientific practices throughout the process of research design, data collection, data analysis, and peer review. In recent years, these calls are particularly loud in social psychology and other fields after public data manipulation and fraud scandals.

While communication as a discipline has remained relatively free of such dramatic retractions and resignations, it may be time for the communication field to implement practices that will not only prevent major fraud and minor violations of open science principles, but also encourage more collaborative sharing of ideas and resources to better validate and extend knowledge in the field. This provocative, and possibly controversial, panel features scholars who are active both in research production and the manuscript review and publication process sharing data, insights, and guidance about the potential of open scientific practices in communication.

Dr. Sriram Kalyanaraman of the University of Florida, an editor of the journal Media Psychology, will argue for a transformative change in the peer review practice to a “crowdsourced” model to get to the heart of concerns about less open peer review practices. Dr. Andrew Przybylski of the Oxford Internet Institute will detail specific practices and tools used increasingly widely in other fields and could be implemented in communication to ensure more open research, with a specific focus on interactive media effects such as video games. Dr. Malte Elson of the University of Münster will overview the prevalence of questionable research practices that would not typically be considered fraud, but which distort knowledge in communication and related fields. Dr. James D. Ivory of Virginia Tech will share data on systematic problems with practices at the manuscript preparation, revision, review, and publication stages that inadvertently subvert hypothesis testing principles and suggest changes that would prevent such incidental distortions. Nicole Krämer of the University of Duisburg-Essen, an associate editor of the Journal of Media Psychology, will serve as chair, discussing strengths and weaknesses of each panelist’s argument and detailing new open science practices she has helped implement.

Sub Unit

• Information Systems

Chair

• Nicole C. Kramer, U of Duisburg - Essen

Individual Presentations

• The Wisdom of Crowds: Transforming the Peer-Review Process - Sriram Kalyanaraman, U of Florida

• Grounding the Study of Interactive Media in Open Science Instead of Hopes and Fears - Andrew K. Przybylski, Oxford Internet Institute

• Methodological Flexibility, Questionable Research Practices, and the Quest for Beauty: Communication Research Needs to be an Open Science - Malte Elson, Ruhr University Bochum

• Two Bites of the Cherry: Incidental Inflation of Significant Findings in Media Research and How New Structures in Manuscript Preparation and Review can Prevent It - James D. Ivory, Virginia Tech

Respondent

• Nicole C. Kramer, U of Duisburg - Essen