A Roadmap for Transparent Research in Special Education and Related Disciplines

Adelson, Jill L.; Barton, Erin E.; Bradshaw, Catherine P.; Bryant, Brian R.; Bryant, Diane Pedrotty; Cook, Bryan G.; Coyne, Michael J.; DeBettencourt, Laurie; DeHaven, Alexander C.; Dymond, Stacy K.; Esposito, Jolene; Farmer, Thomas W.; Gage, Nicholas A.; Kennedy, Michael Peter; Kern, Lee; Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Lee, David; Lembke, Erica S.; Levine, Felice J.; Lloyd, John Wills; Maggin, Daniel M.; Maheady, Lawrence; Makel, Matthew C.; Mason, Linda; Matthews, Michael S.; Mazzotti, Valerie L.; Mellor, David Thomas; Nosek, Brian A.; Renshaw, Tyler L.; Sandage, Rabia Anne; Shogren, Karrie A.; Soderberg, Courtney K.; Solari, Emily J.; Spooner, Fred; Symons, Frank J.; Talbott, Elizabeth; Test, Dave; Therrien, William J.; Thompson, James C.; Travers, Jason C.; Troia, Gary A.

doi:10.31219/osf.io/sqfy3

Cited by 14 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers who make study data openly accessible (e.g., by posting on a repository) provide the opportunity for others to independently verify, replicate, and extend study findings (Adelson et al, 2019;Levenstein & Lyle, 2018). Thus, data sharing can enhance the credibility and reproducibility of findings by allowing others to check for errors in data entry, data analyses, and author-formatted version of a paper before it is submitted for publication (i.e., preprint) to a preprint archive (e.g., www.edarxiv.org; Fleming & Cook, in press).…”

Section: Open-science Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science and Single-Case Design Research

Cook¹,

Johnson²,

Maggin³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicating many study results do not replicate has raised questions about the credibility of science and prompted concerns about a potential reproducibility crisis. Moreover, most published research is not freely accessible, which limits the potential impact of science. Open science, which aims to make the research process more open and reproducible, has been proposed as one approach to increase the credibility and impact of scientific research. Although relatively little attention has been paid to open science in relation to single-case design, we propose that open-science practices can be applied to enhance the credibility and impact of single-case design research. In this paper, we discuss how open-science practices align with other recent developments in single-case design research, describe four prominent open-science practices (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, data and materials sharing, and open access), and discuss potential benefits and limitations of each practice for single-case design.

show abstract

Section: Open-science Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science and Single-Case Design Research

Cook¹,

Johnson²,

Maggin³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These issues pose a serious threat to scientific progress and the credibility of our practices. School psychology requires significant and intentional shifts in research training, practice, and culture to combat these insidious problems and cultivate lasting positive change in the field (Adelson et al, 2019).…”

Section: Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Opening Doors to Open Science and Scholarship for School Psychology Research, Training, and Practice

Aj¹,

Rl²,

Shaw³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trustworthy scientific evidence is essential if school psychologists are to use evidence-based practices to solve the big problems students, teachers, and schools face. Open science practices promote transparency, accessibility, and robustness of research findings, which increases the trustworthiness of scientific claims. Simply, when researchers, trainers, and practitioners can ‘look under the hood’ of a study, (a) the researchers who conducted the study are likely to be more cautious, (b) reviewers are better able to engage the self-correcting mechanisms of science, and (c) readers have more reason to trust the research findings. We discuss questionable research practices that reduce the trustworthiness of evidence; specific open science practices; applications specific to researchers, trainers, and practitioners in school psychology; and next steps in moving the field toward openness and transparency.

show abstract

“…As editors of GCQ , we are committed to “the very foundations of scientific research—that is, reproducibility, generalizability, and the accuracy of findings” (McBee, Makel, Peters, & Matthews, 2018, p. 374; see also Adelson et al, 2019). To help improve the quality of the research published in GCQ and to allow for increased detectability of errors prior to publication, in December, 2018, GCQ signed the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.…”

Section: Open Science Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We encourage individual researchers to implement open science practices to the extent feasible (for more information, see McBee et al, 2018 and Adelson et al, 2019). To communicate clearly to our readers when articles have implemented specific open science practices, GCQ now offers up to three open science badges, which are small icons that will appear on the title page of published articles and next to the titles of articles on the SAGE webpage.…”

Section: Open Science Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gifted Child Quarterly’s Commitment to Transparency, Openness, and Research Improvement

Adelson

Matthews

2019

Gifted Child Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EditorialAs we continue into our second year as Editors of Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ), we are very excited to be able to share the changes we have been working to implement for the journal in the types of manuscripts accepted, in keywords for manuscripts and reviewers, and in GCQ's commitment to open science practices. As Editors, we spent much of our first year making improvements to our procedures, email templates, and timelines, and now with these behind-thescenes changes mostly completed we are ready to take some big steps that will position GCQ as an education leader in moving our research practices forward. During our planning process, we have consulted with our editorial team, with editors of other special education journals, with experts from other disciplines, with members of two working groups that we formed, and with the SAGE publishing team. We are conscious of the value of our journal's page space, and as always, we will continue to reserve as much of it as possible for publishing high-quality research; however, to most effectively share these exciting new changes, we have decided to describe briefly both the changes themselves and our rationale for making them here, in the journal's pages, where these will be most visible to our readership.

show abstract

A Roadmap for Transparent Research in Special Education and Related Disciplines

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Open Science and Single-Case Design Research

Open Science and Single-Case Design Research

Opening Doors to Open Science and Scholarship for School Psychology Research, Training, and Practice

Gifted Child Quarterly’s Commitment to Transparency, Openness, and Research Improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About