ONLINE OPINION EDITORIAL | Enhancing Accessibility of Communication Sciences and Disorders Research: Open Access and Self-Archiving

By Laura Gaeta, Danika Pfeiffer, and Elaine Kearney

This article is a part of the January/February 2022, Volume 34, Number 1, Audiology Today issue. 

History of Open Science

Open science is a collection of scientific practices designed to increase the transparency and accessibility of research (van der Zee and Reich, 2018). Open science has garnered popularity due to the “replication crisis,” which refers to the inability to replicate scientific findings in many fields (e.g., psychology) and puts the validity of these studies into question. 

In 2015, the Open Science Collaboration sought to replicate 100 studies from three journals in psychology. The group found that only 36 percent of the replications were successful in matching the original studies’ significant results (2015). This finding sparked a major debate about responsible research practices and scientific publishing, leading to discussions and initiatives to increase the reproducibility and transparency around scholarly research. 

Compared to the field of psychology, open-science practices in audiology are more recent. A 2020 editorial from Ear and Hearing explained how the journal will promote the movement through “Open Practice Badges” (Svirsky, 2020), which identify preregistered, accessible, and/or sharable content. In this article, we will describe ways in which researchers and clinicians in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) can promote transparency and improve accessibility through two open-science practices: open access and self-archiving. 

Open Access

Much of the research process is currently inaccessible to key stakeholders, including researchers, clinicians, and the public. Publications, which are a common product of the research process, are often unavailable to those who do not have access to journals through professional membership or university/institutional affiliation. Additionally, evidence-based practice gaps can result from clinician-related barriers for performing searches, accessing papers, and interpreting these research findings (Nail-Chiwetalu and Ratner, 2007; Thome et al, 2020).