Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 66, Number 6
Pages 1928-1947
Abstract
Purpose:
Open science is a collection of practices that seek to improve the accessibility, transparency, and replicability of science. Although these practices have garnered interest in related fields, it remains unclear whether open science practices have been adopted in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD). This study aimed to survey the knowledge, implementation, and perceived benefits and barriers of open science practices in CSD.
Method:
An online survey was disseminated to researchers in the United States actively engaged in CSD research. Four-core open science practices were examined: preregistration, self-archiving, gold open access, and open data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models.
Results:
Two hundred twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were doctoral students (38%) or assistant professors (24%) at R1 institutions (58%). Participants reported low knowledge of preregistration and gold open access. There was, however, a high level of desire to learn more for all practices. Implementation of open science practices was also low, most notably for preregistration, gold open access, and open data (< 25%). Predictors of knowledge and participation, as well as perceived barriers to implementation, are discussed.
Conclusion:
Although participation in open science appears low in the field of CSD, participants expressed a strong desire to learn more in order to engage in these practices in the future.
Supplemental Material and Open Science Form:
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2021). Research data standards. ASHA Journals Academy. https://academy.pubs.asha.org/asha-journals-author-resource-center/manuscript-preparation/guidelines-for-reporting-your-research/research-data-standards/
Armeni, K., Brinkman, L., Carlsson, R., Eerland, A., Fijten, R., Fondberg, R., Heininga, V. E., Heunis, S., Koh, W. Q., Masselink, M., Moran, N., Baoill, A. Ó., Sarafoglou, A., Schettino, A., Schwamm, H., Sjoerds, Z., Teperek, M., van den Akker, O. R., van Veer, A., & Zurita-Milla, R. (2021). Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: The role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 605–611.
Baggerly, K. A., & Coombes, K. R. (2009). Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 3(4), 1309–1334.
Bahlai, C., Bartlett, L. J., Burgio, K. R., Fournier, A. M. V., Keiser, C. N., Poisot, T., & Stack Whitney, K. (2019). Open Science Isn't always open to all scientists. American Scientist. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/open-science-isnt-always-open-to-all-scientists.
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 09(1), 65–70.
Barth-Jones, D. (2012). The debate over “re-identification” of health information: What do we risk? Health Affairs Forefront.
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer Singapore.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304.
Chambers, C. (2019). What's next for registered reports? Nature, 573(7773), 187–189.
Chen, R. J., Lu, M. Y., Chen, T. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., & Mahmood, F. (2021). Synthetic data in machine learning for medicine and healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 5(6), 493–497.
Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). Cumulative link models for ordinal regression with the R Package ordinal. 40.
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.
Claesen, A., Gomes, S. L. B. T., Tuerlinckx, F., & Vanpaemel, W. (2019). Preregistration: Comparing dream to reality [Preprint] . PsyArXiv.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information.
Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Ozge Buzbas, E. (2021). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), 200805.
Else, H. (2020). Nature journals reveal terms of landmark open-access option. Nature, 588(7836), 19–20.
Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., & Fidler, F. (2018). Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200303.
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biology, 13(6), Article e1002165.
Fox, J. W. S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
Gagliardi, D., Cox, D., & Li, Y. (2014). What are the factors driving and hindering the adoption of open science? An exploratory study. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/what-are-the-factors-driving-and-hindering-the-adoption-of-open-science-an-exploratory-study(9fe4bae2-66e8-4f3b-b545-053c3d4059a5).html
Hardwicke, T. E., Bohn, M., MacDonald, K., Hembacher, E., Nuijten, M. B., Peloquin, N., Yoon, E. J., & Frank, M. C. (2020). Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal psychological science: An observational study. Royal Society Open Science, 8, 9.
Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M., Bishop, D. V., Nichols, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 70–85.
Hubbard, R., Vetter, D. E., & Little, E. L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 243–254.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2021). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. (2021). Guide to social science data preparation and archiving: Best practice throughout the data life cycle (6th ed.).
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Munafò, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: Detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 235–241.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.
Johnson, A. L., Torgerson, T., Skinner, M., Hamilton, T., Tritz, D., & Vassar, M. (2020). An assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope, 130(8), 1894–1901.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.
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), Article e1002456.
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), 1–15.
Kostkova, P., Brewer, H., de Lusignan, S., Fottrell, E., Goldacre, B., Hart, G., Koczan, P., Knight, P., Marsolier, C., McKendry, R. A., Ross, E., Sasse, A., Sullivan, R., Chaytor, S., Stevenson, O., Velho, R., & Tooke, J. (2016). Who owns the data? Open data for healthcare open data for healthcare. Frontiers in Public Health, 4.
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R Package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Introducing registered reports at Language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Wiley Online Library.
Martone, M. E., Garcia-Castro, A., & VandenBos, G. R. (2018). Data sharing in psychology. The American Psychologist, 73(2), 111–125.
McGee, S. (2002). Simplifying likelihood ratios. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(8), 647–650.
Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 131–144.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9.
Navarro, D. (2020). Paths in strange spaces: A comment on preregistration [Preprint] . PsyArXiv.
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology's renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 511–534.
OECD. (2015). Making open science a reality (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 25; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, Vol. 25).
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science.
Open Science Monitor. (2019). Study on open science: Monitoring trends and drivers. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/knowledge_publications_tools_and_data/documents/ec_rtd_open_science_monitor_final-report.pdf
Paret, C., Unverhau, N., Feingold, F., Poldrack, R. A., Stirner, M., Schmahl, C., & Sicorello, M. (2022). Survey on Open Science practices in functional neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 257, 119306.
Piwowar, H. A., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6. Article e4375.
Piwowar, H. A., & Vision, T. J. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1. Article e175.
Quintana, D. S. (2020). A synthetic dataset primer for the biobehavioural sciences to promote reproducibility and hypothesis generation. eLife, 9.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rubin, M. (2020). Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 376–390.
Samsa, G., & Samsa, L. (2019). A guide to reproducibility in preclinical research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 94(1), 47–52.
Schmidt, B., Gemeinholzer, B., & Treloar, A. (2016). Open data in global environmental research: The Belmont Forum's open data survey. PLOS ONE, 11(1), Article e0146695.
Schroeder, S. R., Gaeta, L., El Amin, M., Chow, J., & Borders, J. C. (2022). Evaluating research transparency and openness in communication sciences and disorders journals.
Storkel, H. L., & Gallun, F. J. (2022). Announcing a new registered report article type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(1), 1–4.
Svirsky, M. A. (2020). Editorial: Preregistration and Open Science practices in hearing science and audiology: The time has come. Ear and Hearing, 41(1), 1–2.
Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., Manoff, M., & Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLOS ONE, 6(6), Article e21101.
Thome, E. K., Loveall, S. J., & Henderson, D. E. (2020). A survey of speech-language pathologists' understanding and reported use of evidence-based practice. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(4), 984–999.
Toribio-Flórez, D., Anneser, L., deOliveira-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, 17.
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., Santos, L. B., da, S., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), Article No. 160018.
Zečević, K., Houghton, C., Noone, C., Lee, H., Matvienko-Sikar, K., & Toomey, E. (2021). Exploring factors that influence the practice of Open Science by early career health researchers: A mixed methods study. HRB Open Research, 3.
Zhu, Y. (2017). Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics' OA practice. Scientometrics, 111(2), 557–579.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 66 • Number 6 • June 2023
Pages: 1928-1947
PubMed: 36417765
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Jan 27, 2022
- Revised: Jul 15, 2022
- Accepted: Aug 7, 2022
- Published online: Nov 23, 2022
- Published in issue: Jun 20, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Metrics
View all metricsCitations
Download article citation data for:
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Citing Literature
- Danika L. Pfeiffer, Austin Thompson, Brittany Ciullo, Micah E. Hirsch, Mariam El Amin, Andrea Ford, Jessica Riccardi, Elaine Kearney, “1-800-Help-Me-With-Open-Science-Stuff”: A Qualitative Examination of Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00378, 68, 1, (105-128), (2024).
- James C. Borders, Alessandro A. Grande, Carly E. A. Barbon, Katherine A. Hutcheson, Michelle S. Troche, Effects of Statistical Practices for Longitudinal Group Comparison of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale on Power and Effect Size Estimation: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study, Dysphagia, 10.1007/s00455-024-10738-7, 40, 2, (388-398), (2024).
- Andrea L. B. Ford, Kirstin Kuchler, Betul Cakir-Dilek, Marianne Elmquist, Lizbeth H. Finestack, A Tutorial for Enhancing Clarity and Transparency in Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences Intervention Research With the TIDieR, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00389, 33, 4, (1608-1618), (2024).
- Elizabeth Heller Murray, Conducting high-quality and reliable acoustic analysis: A tutorial focused on training research assistants, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 10.1121/10.0025536, 155, 4, (2603-2611), (2024).
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login