{"title":"Not so open science","authors":"J. Fox","doi":"10.1080/23808985.2022.2130814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Bowman et al. (2022. How communication scholars see open scholarship. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(3)) present a survey of ICA members regarding open science beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Rather than an inquiry on open scholarship, it provides a replication of psychology’s approach to open science in content, execution, and reporting. I apply the ethical, inclusive research framework (EIRF) and re-analyze the data, critiquing the inclusiveness and validity of the current survey. Suggestions are offered regarding consent practices, survey design, and open data in future surveys. I close with provocations for ICA regarding their continued pursuit of a problematic open science paradigm.","PeriodicalId":36859,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the International Communication Association","volume":"26 1","pages":"247 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the International Communication Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2130814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bowman et al. (2022. How communication scholars see open scholarship. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(3)) present a survey of ICA members regarding open science beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Rather than an inquiry on open scholarship, it provides a replication of psychology’s approach to open science in content, execution, and reporting. I apply the ethical, inclusive research framework (EIRF) and re-analyze the data, critiquing the inclusiveness and validity of the current survey. Suggestions are offered regarding consent practices, survey design, and open data in future surveys. I close with provocations for ICA regarding their continued pursuit of a problematic open science paradigm.