Reproducible research practices and transparency across linguistics

Agata Bochynska, Liam Keeble, Caitlin Halfacre, Joseph V. Casillas, Irys-Amélie Champagne, Kaidi Chen, Melanie Röthlisberger, Erin M. Buchanan, Timo B. Roettger
{"title":"Reproducible research practices and transparency across linguistics","authors":"Agata Bochynska, Liam Keeble, Caitlin Halfacre, Joseph V. Casillas, Irys-Amélie Champagne, Kaidi Chen, Melanie Röthlisberger, Erin M. Buchanan, Timo B. Roettger","doi":"10.5070/g6011239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social,  cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. As it becomes increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the  proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices,  e.g., open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications, and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in 600 randomly sampled journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found that 35% of the articles were published open access and the rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols were below 10%. None of the articles reported preregistrations, 1% reported replications, and 10% had conflict of interest statements. These rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and the slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. To facilitate adoption of these practices, we provide a range of recommendations and solutions for implementing transparency and improving reproducibility of research in linguistics.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":" 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g6011239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social,  cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. As it becomes increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the  proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices,  e.g., open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications, and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in 600 randomly sampled journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found that 35% of the articles were published open access and the rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols were below 10%. None of the articles reported preregistrations, 1% reported replications, and 10% had conflict of interest statements. These rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and the slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. To facilitate adoption of these practices, we provide a range of recommendations and solutions for implementing transparency and improving reproducibility of research in linguistics.
可重复的研究实践和跨语言学的透明度
对语言的科学研究跨越了许多学科,并为社会、文化和语言的研究提供了证据。人类本性和行为的文化、认知、技术和生物医学研究。随着越来越多的实证和定量,语言学一直面临着科学实践的挑战和限制,这些挑战和限制对再现性和可复制性构成了障碍。他们中的一个对于广泛承认的可重复性和可复制性危机,建议的解决方案是实施透明度做法, 例如,开放获取出版、预注册、共享研究材料、数据和分析、进行研究复制和声明利益冲突。在这里,我们在600篇随机抽样的语言学期刊文章中评估了这些做法在两个时间点上的流行程度。与其他学科的类似研究一致,我们发现35%的文章是开放获取的,共享材料、数据和协议的比例低于10%。没有一篇文章报告了预注册,1%报告了重复,10%有利益冲突声明。在2008/2009年至2018/2019年期间,这些比率没有明显增加,这表明语言学领域仍然存在障碍,开放和可重复的研究实践采用缓慢。为了促进这些实践的采用,我们提供了一系列建议和解决方案,以实现透明度和提高语言学研究的可重复性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信