Evaluating Research Transparency and Openness in Communication Sciences and Disorders Journals.

Purpose: To improve the credibility, reproducibility, and clinical utility of research findings, many scientific fields are implementing transparent and open research practices. Such open science practices include researchers making their data publicly available and preregistering their hypotheses a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Vol. 66; no. 6; pp. 1977 - 1986
Autores principales: Schroeder, Scott R., Gaeta, Laura, El Amin, Mariam, Chow, Jason C., Borders, James C.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Jun2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=164422019&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 164422019
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10924388
        1SM
      jtl: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research
      issn: 10924388
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2023
      vid: 66
      iid: 6
      pid: 42
      pub: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
    artinfo:
      ui:
        164422019
        10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00330
      ppf: 1977
      ppct: 9
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 773KB
      tig:
        atl: Evaluating Research Transparency and Openness in Communication Sciences and Disorders Journals.
      aug:
        au:
          Schroeder, Scott R.
          Gaeta, Laura
          El Amin, Mariam
          Chow, Jason C.
          Borders, James C.
        affil:
          Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.
          Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, California State University, Sacramento.
          Department of Communication Sciences and Special Education, University of Georgia, Athens.
          Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park.
          Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park.
          Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
      su:
        Quantitative research
        Communicative disorders
        Communication
        Medical research
        Surveys
        Descriptive statistics
      sug:
        subj:
          Quantitative research
          Communicative disorders
          Communication
          Medical research
          Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
          Surveys
          Descriptive statistics
      ab: Purpose: To improve the credibility, reproducibility, and clinical utility of research findings, many scientific fields are implementing transparent and open research practices. Such open science practices include researchers making their data publicly available and preregistering their hypotheses and analyses. A way to enhance the adoption of open science practices is for journals to encourage or require submitting authors to participate in such practices. Accordingly, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s Journals Program has recently announced their intention to promote open science practices. Here, we quantitatively assess the extent to which several journals in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) encourage or require participation in several open science practices by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Factor metric. Method: TOP Factors were assessed for 34 CSD journals, as well as several journals in related fields. TOP Factors measure the level of implementation across 10 open science–related practices (e.g., data transparency, analysis plan preregistration, and replication) for a total possible score of 29 points. Results: Collectively, CSD journals had very low TOP Factors (M = 1.4, range: 0–8). The related fields of Psychology (M = 4.0), Rehabilitation (M = 3.2), Linguistics (M = 1.7), and Education (M = 1.6) also had low scores, though Psychology and Rehabilitation had higher scores than CSD. Conclusion: CSD journals currently have low levels of encouraging or requiring participation in open science practices, which may impede adoption.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N