Skip to main content
  1. Tobias Dienlin
  2. /
  3. Niklas Johannes
  4. /
  5. Nicholas David Bowman
  6. /
  7. Philipp K. Masur
  8. /
  9. Sven Engesser
  10. /
  11. Anna Sophie Kümpel
  12. /
  13. Josephine Lukito
  14. /
  15. Lindsey M. Bier
  16. /
  17. Renwen Zhang
  18. /
  19. Benjamin K. Johnson
  20. /
  21. Richard Huskey
  22. /
  23. Frank M. Schneider
  24. /
  25. Johannes Breuer
  26. /
  27. Douglas A. Parry
  28. /
  29. Ivar Vermeulen
  30. /
  31. Jacob T. Fisher
  32. /
  33. Jaime Banks
  34. /
  35. René Weber
  36. /
  37. David A. Ellis
  38. /
  39. Tim Smits
  40. /
  41. James D. Ivory
  42. /
  43. Sabine Trepte
  44. /
  45. Bree McEwan
  46. /
  47. Eike Mark Rinke
  48. /
  49. German Neubaum
  50. /
  51. Stephan Winter
  52. /
  53. Christopher J. Carpenter
  54. /
  55. Nicole Krämer
  56. /
  57. Sonja Utz
  58. /
  59. Julian Unkel
  60. /
  61. Xiaohui Wang
  62. /
  63. Brittany I. Davidson
  64. /
  65. Nuri Kim
  66. /
  67. Andrea Stevenson Won
  68. /
  69. Emese Domahidi
  70. /
  71. Neil A. Lewis
  72. /
  73. Claes de Vreese

An Agenda for Open Science in Communication

Abstract #

In the last 10 years, many canonical findings in the social sciences appear unreliable. This so-called “replication crisis” has spurred calls for open science practices, which aim to increase the reproducibility, replicability, and generalizability of findings. Communication research is subject to many of the same challenges that have caused low replicability in other fields. As a result, we propose an agenda for adopting open science practices in Communication, which includes the following seven suggestions: (1) publish materials, data, and code; (2) preregister studies and submit registered reports; (3) conduct replications; (4) collaborate; (5) foster open science skills; (6) implement Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines; and (7) incentivize open science practices. Although in our agenda we focus mostly on quantitative research, we also reflect on open science practices relevant to qualitative research. We conclude by discussing potential objections and concerns associated with open science practices.

Cite #

@article{
  Dienlin_2021,
  title={An Agenda for Open Science in Communication}, 
  volume={71}, 
  ISSN={1460-2466}, 
  url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052}, 
  DOI={10.1093/joc/jqz052}, 
  number={1}, 
  journal={Journal of Communication}, 
  publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, 
  author={Dienlin, Tobias and Johannes, Niklas and Bowman, Nicholas David and Masur, Philipp K and Engesser, Sven and Kümpel, Anna Sophie and Lukito, Josephine and Bier, Lindsey M and Zhang, Renwen and Johnson, Benjamin K and Huskey, Richard and Schneider, Frank M and Breuer, Johannes and Parry, Douglas A and Vermeulen, Ivar and Fisher, Jacob T and Banks, Jaime and Weber, René and Ellis, David A and Smits, Tim and Ivory, James D and Trepte, Sabine and McEwan, Bree and Rinke, Eike Mark and Neubaum, German and Winter, Stephan and Carpenter, Christopher J and Krämer, Nicole and Utz, Sonja and Unkel, Julian and Wang, Xiaohui and Davidson, Brittany I and Kim, Nuri and Won, Andrea Stevenson and Domahidi, Emese and Lewis, Neil A and de Vreese, Claes}, 
  year={2020},
  pages={1–26}
}