Authors

  1. Section Editor(s): Troia, Gary A. PhD, CCC-SLP
  2. Co-Editors
  3. Wallace, Sarah E. PhD, CCC-SLP
  4. Co-Editors

Article Content

As we come to a close on the 40th anniversary of Topics in Language Disorders, the journal editors, the editorial board, and Wolters Kluwer are excited to announce that we are adopting open science policies and practices for journal submissions involving data-based articles. Given concerns among the general public and among scientists in many fields, including psychology, communication sciences and disorders, special education, and rehabilitation, regarding the transparency, reproducibility, and reputability of research findings (e.g., Cook et al., 2018; Ioannidis, 2005; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Simmons et al., 2011), we believe this move to adopt an open science framework will enhance the quality of the journal, the articles within its pages, and the scientific enterprise underpinning the reports of research we share with our readers. The principles of open science delineated by the Center for Open Science in the Guidelines for Transparency and Openness Promotion in Journal Policies and Practices can be found at https://osf.io/ud578/. Topics in Language Disorders will adhere to Level 1 standards, meaning that, when authors submit data-based articles, they will be asked to disclose upon submission if they adhered to open science practices via the following statements:

  

1. Data are/are not available to researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedures. Available data may be found at (include a persistent identifier such as Digital Object Identifier [DOI]).

 

2. Research materials are/are not available to researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedures. Available research materials may be found at (include a persistent identifier such as DOI).

 

3. Study analytical methods (codes) are/are not available to researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedures. Available analytical codes may be found at (include a persistent identifier such as DOI).

 

4. The reported study is/is not preregistered with/without a statistical analysis plan in an independent, institutional registry. The preregistered study/analytical plan may be found at (include web address where the preregistration may be located by others).

 

Authors who indicate in the affirmative that they have adhered to any of these open science practices will be eligible for the badge associated with each practice used and will be asked if they wish to have the badge or badges included with their published article. The badges are illustrated in Figure 1.

  
Figure 1 - Click to enlarge in new windowFigure 1. Badge icons.

Badge icons will be displayed at the beginning of the article in both the print and electronic versions along with the URL, DOI, or other permanent path for accessing the appropriate documentation for access, and badge icons will appear beside the article title in the table of contents. Topics in Language Disorders evaluates affirmative disclosures before issuing a badge (issuance is predicated on authors' agreement to be awarded the badge), but does not do more than a cursory evaluation of the data, materials, or registration. Such a review might include confirming that the provided link leads to the data, materials, or registration on a public, open access repository and that the linked materials are related to the report of research. Authors are accountable to the community for disclosure accuracy. We should note that authors are in no way required to adhere to these practices for the submission or publication of their work in Topics in Language Disorders; we simply will ask authors of data-based articles to disclose if they did or did not do so, making the use of open science principles voluntary. We believe the adoption of greater research transparency via open data (to increase replicability of data analyses and results), open materials (to increase replicability of study methods), and preregistration (to increase the transparency of research hypotheses and study plans and to document when deviations to planned study activities and analyses occur) will help incentivize the abandonment of problematic practices such a p-hacking, post hoc hypothesizing, and selective reporting of findings and increase the trustworthiness of data-based research for other scholars, clinicians and practitioners, and the public.

 

We also celebrate the 40th anniversary of Topics in Language Disorders with the announcement of the winner of the inaugural Katharine G. Butler Trailblazer Award, an award established by the journal editors, the editorial board, and Wolters Kluwer in honor of the founding editor of Topics in Language Disorders, Kay Butler, who passed away in 2019. The editors nominated three articles published in the journal during the preceding volume year (i.e., 2019), and a panel of four editorial board members evaluated each for the following characteristics that reflect Kay's original vision for the journal:

  

1. Trailblazing in its scope, aims, methodology, or other aspect in a way that triggers readers to think differently about a topic.

 

2. Represents valued interdisciplinary and/or international collaboration.

 

3. Raises awareness of language as an aspect of communication that extends across the age-span and/or across varied populations of children or adults with language disorders.

 

4. Solid in its technical aspects as appropriate for the article type.

 

Based on the editorial board members' evaluations, the recipient of the 2020 Katharine G. Butler Trailblazer Award is "AAC and Artificial Intelligence (AI)," authored by Samuel C. Sennott, Linda Akagi, Mary Lee, and Anthony Rhodes. We encourage you to read this article (it is available in print and free to view and download on the journal website at https://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/toc/2019/10000) because it encompasses the qualities noted earlier. The award includes a gift card in the amount of $1,000. Congratulations to the authors on their exemplary and trailblazing work, and thank you to the editorial board members who served as evaluators for the nominated articles, Drs. Michelle Bourgeois, Kate Cain, Geralyn Timler, and Kristy Weissling.

 

-Gary A. Troia, PhD, CCC-SLP

 

-Sarah E. Wallace, PhD, CCC-SLP

 

Co-Editors

 

REFERENCES

 

Cook B. G., Lloyd J. W., Mellor D., Nosek B. A., Therrien W. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85, 104-118. [Context Link]

 

Ioannidis J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124[Context Link]

 

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716[Context Link]

 

Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., Simonsohn U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. [Context Link]