CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trusting on the shoulders of open giants? Open science increases trust in science for the public and academics

Song, Hyunjin, Markowitz, David M, Taylor, Samuel Hardman·2022·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1093/joc/jqac017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science compared to studies without open science. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,691), we find that the general public perceived open science research and researchers as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science counterparts (Studies 1 and 2). We also explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research (Study 2), although the evidence did not support this hypothesis. Finally, Study 3 examined how communication scholars perceive researchers and their work as a function of open science adoption, along with publication outlet (e.g., high-prestige vs. low-prestige journals). We observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research by academics. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/joc/jqac017

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Abele-Brehm, 2019, Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing, Social Psychology, 50, 252, 10.1027/1864-9335/a000384 · DOI
  2. Abramo, 2010, Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: Could the latter ever be preferable?, Scientometrics, 84, 821, 10.1007/s11192-010-0200-1 · DOI
  3. Anvari, 2018, The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3, 266, 10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822 · DOI
  4. Aronow, 2019, A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check, Political Analysis, 27, 572, 10.1017/pan.2019.5 · DOI
  5. Baguley, 2009, Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?, British Journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 100, 603, 10.1348/000712608X377117 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bahlai, 2019, Open science isn’t always open to all scientists, American Scientist, 107, 78, 10.1511/2019.107.2.78 · DOI
  7. Bakker, 2021, Questionable and open research practices: attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers, Journal of Communication, 71, 715, 10.1093/joc/jqab031 · DOI
  8. Besançon, 2021, Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21, 1, 10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y · DOI
  9. Catling, 2009, Quality is in the eye of the beholder? An evaluation of impact factors and perception of journal prestige in the UK, Scientometrics, 81, 333, 10.1007/s11192-009-2124-1 · DOI
  10. Chan, 2020, The highs in communication research: Research topics with high supply, high popularity, and high prestige in high-impact journals, Communication Research, 009365022094479
  11. Chakravartty, 2018, #CommunicationSoWhite, Journal of Communication, 68, 254, 10.1093/joc/jqy003 · DOI
  12. Clemens, 1995, Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations, American Journal of Sociology, 101, 433, 10.1086/230730 · DOI
  13. Coronel, 2021, Political humor, sharing, and remembering: Insights from Neuroimaging, Journal of Communication, 71, 129, 10.1093/joc/jqaa041 · DOI
  14. Critchley, 2008, Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers, Public Understanding of science (Bristol, England), 17, 309, 10.1177/0963662506070162 · DOI
  15. Cummings, 2014, The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health, Health Communication, 29, 1043, 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685 · DOI
  16. Dienlin, 2021, An agenda for open science in communication, Journal of Communication, 71, 1, 10.1093/joc/jqz052 · DOI
  17. Field, 2020, The effect of preregistration on trust in empirical research findings: Results of a registered report, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 181351, 10.1098/rsos.181351 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fox, 2021, Open science, closed doors? Countering marginalization through an agenda for ethical, inclusive research in communication, Journal of Communication, 71, 764
  19. Freiling, 2021, The science of open (communication) science: Toward an evidence-driven understanding of quality criteria in communication research, Journal of Communication, 71, 686
  20. Grand, 2012, Open science: a new “trust technology”?, Science Communication, 34, 679, 10.1177/1075547012443021 · DOI
  21. Grimes, 2018, Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure, Royal Society Open Science, 5, 171511, 10.1098/rsos.171511 · DOI
  22. Hendriks, 2015, Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI), PloS one, 10, e0139309, 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hendriks, 2016, Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger, Studies in Communication Sciences, 16, 124, 10.1016/j.scoms.2016.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hendriks, 2020, Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople’s trust in researchers and research, Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 29, 270, 10.1177/0963662520902383 · DOI
  25. Howard, 1994, Language, logic, and the structure of scientific theories, 45, 10.2307/jj.3102566.7 · DOI
  26. Ioannidis, 2014, Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: Detection, prevalence, and prevention, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 235, 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Krause, 2019, Trends—Americans’ trust in science and scientists, Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 817
  28. Keating, 2019, We do publish (conceptual) replications (sometimes): Publication trends in communication science, 2007–2016, Annals of the International Communication Association, 43, 225, 10.1080/23808985.2019.1632218 · DOI
  29. König, 2019, Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates, Public Understanding of Science, 28, 401, 10.1177/0963662519833903 · DOI
  30. Kuhn, 1962, The structure of scientific revolutions
  31. Lewis, 2020, Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how, Communication Methods and Measures, 14, 71, 10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660 · DOI
  32. Markowitz, 2021, Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research, Journal of Communication, 71, 739
  33. Matthes, 2015, Questionable research practices in experimental communication research: A systematic analysis from 1980 to 2013, Communication Methods and Measures, 9, 193, 10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334 · DOI
  34. Maxwell, 2015, Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?, The American Psychologist, 70, 487, 10.1037/a0039400 · DOI
  35. McEwan, 2018, On replication in communication science, Communication Studies, 69, 235, 10.1080/10510974.2018.1464938 · DOI
  36. Mede, 2021, The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research, Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 30, 91, 10.1177/0963662520954370 · DOI
  37. Merrill, 2017, Couple identity gaps, the management of conflict, and biological and self-reported stress in romantic relationships, Human Communication Research, 43, 363, 10.1111/hcre.12110 · DOI
  38. Merton, 1957, Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science, American Sociological Review, 22, 635, 10.2307/2089193 · DOI
  39. Merton, 1968, The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered, Science, 159, 56, 10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Merton, 1973, The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations
  41. Mummolo, 2019, Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment, American Political Science Review, 113, 517, 10.1017/S0003055418000837 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Oliver, 2011, Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption, Journal of Communication, 61, 984, 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x · DOI
  43. Pek, 2018, Reporting effect sizes in original psychological research: A discussion and tutorial, Psychological Methods, 23, 208, 10.1037/met0000126 · DOI
  44. Resnik, 1998, The ethics of science: An introduction
  45. Resnik, 2011, Scientific research and the public trust, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 399, 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x · DOI
  46. Rosman, 2020, Preregistration: Open Science and the Public's Trust in Science, PsychArchives
  47. Schneider, 2020, (Re)building trust? Journals’ open science badges influence trust in scientists, PsychArchives
  48. Schneider, 2021, Do open science badges increase trust in scientists among undergraduates, scientists, and the public?, PsyArXiv
  49. Simmons, 2011, False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant, Psychological Science, 22, 1359, 10.1177/0956797611417632 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Skurka, 2018, Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions, Journal of Communication, 68, 169, 10.1093/joc/jqx008 · DOI
  51. Song, 2020, Less fragmented than we thought? Toward clarification of a subdisciplinary linkage in communication science, 2010–2019, Journal of Communication, 70, 310, 10.1093/joc/jqaa009 · DOI
  52. Teevan, 1980, Journal prestige and quality of sociological articles, The American Sociologist, 109
  53. Waisbord, 2019, Communication: A post-discipline
  54. Wells, 1999, Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115, 10.1177/01461672992512005 · DOI
  55. Wilholt, 2013, Epistemic trust in science, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233, 10.1093/bjps/axs007 · DOI
  56. Wingen, 2020, No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 454, 10.1177/1948550619877412 · DOI
  57. Wirth, 2012, Beyond pleasure: Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience, Human Communication Research, 38, 406, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01434.x · DOI
  58. Yarborough, 2014, Openness in science is key to keeping public trust, Nature News, 515, 313, 10.1038/515313a · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 41

Metadata

Authors
Song, H., Markowitz, D. M., & Taylor, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Communication, Yonsei University , Seoul, South Korea
  • School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon , Eugene, OR, USA
  • Department of Communication, University of Illinois Chicago , Chicago, IL, USA
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2022-06-30
Volume
72
Issue
4
Pages
497-510
ISSN
  • 0021-9916
  • 1460-2466
DOI
10.1093/joc/jqac017
Cited by
41
References
8
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Funders
  • Yonsei University
  • Yonsei New Faculty Research Seed Funding Grant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review