View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications
Language: English
Authors: Cook, Bryan G. (ORCID 0000-0001-9294-0873), van Dijk, Wilhelmina, Vargas, Isabel, Aigotti, Susan M., Fleming, Jesse I., McDonald, Sean D., Richmond, Cassidi L., Griendling, Lindsay M. (ORCID 0000-0002-5243-990X), McLucas, Alan S., Johnson, Rachelle M. (ORCID 0000-0002-8416-9262)
Source: Exceptional Children. Apr 2023 89(3):238-255.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
Contract Number: R305B200020
H325D180108
H325D190048
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Special Education, Journal Articles, Open Educational Resources, Access to Information, Educational Research
DOI: 10.1177/00144029221145195
ISSN: 0014-4029
2163-5560
Abstract: Open practices, such as preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, open analytic code, replication, open peer review, open access, and conflict-of-interest and funding statements, support the transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility of research and other scholarship. The purpose of this review was to examine the prevalence of these open practices in the special education literature. We reviewed a randomly selected sample of 250 articles published in special education journals in 2020. Results indicated that conflict-of-interest and funding statements were present in most articles; a small but meaningful proportion of articles provided open materials and were open access; and preregistration, registered reports, open data, open analytic code, open peer review, and replication were rarely or never observed. Recommendations for researching and supporting the use of open practices in special education scholarship are provided.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/ykwrn
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1371868
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFgaYoM2tMb3mpAq-SdZTEzAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGorXkMBHmJxNSLbLQIBEICBmy7oN71hgdyE4GemAu0HV5-XyOSXJGzF0t0iXqjh1Q1w3L9Tf27huUzVLpaICjiEEup1NbBdcq_hSYsdNBY8WK7gIdF7Pv3jZI40AC6V6TmSEzZKEagPwv34IV3NMExrL56duBM24vuD1grt6_7SAoIBHtqLR7oDkBlPxK0FgvTsobTwf7lpYNVYDlIiZoYDAx2ibB7B-LtD99X5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0162601444;exc01apr.23;2023Mar24.06:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0162601444-1">A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications </title> <p>Open practices, such as preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, open analytic code, replication, open peer review, open access, and conflict-of-interest and funding statements, support the transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility of research and other scholarship. The purpose of this review was to examine the prevalence of these open practices in the special education literature. We reviewed a randomly selected sample of 250 articles published in special education journals in 2020. Results indicated that conflict-of-interest and funding statements were present in most articles; a small but meaningful proportion of articles provided open materials and were open access; and preregistration, registered reports, open data, open analytic code, open peer review, and replication were rarely or never observed. Recommendations for researching and supporting the use of open practices in special education scholarship are provided.</p> <p>Evidence of low transparency, accessibility, and replicability of scientific research in fields outside of special education (see [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]) led many researchers to perceive a reproducibility crisis in science ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]). Research that is transparent, accessible, and replicable promotes the credibility of, participation in, and use of research in all fields but may be especially important in applied fields such as special education, in which policy and practice are directly informed by research ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]). Rather than framing these issues as a crisis, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref6">64</reflink>] suggested they represent an opportunity to improve the credibility of research. Consistent with Vazire's call and ongoing efforts to maximize the validity and influence of research in special education (see [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref7">48</reflink>]), a variety of practices associated with open science have been proposed to enhance the transparency, accessibility, and replicability of research in education and special education ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref10">63</reflink>]). These open practices include (but are not limited to) preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, open analytic code, replication, open review, open access, and transparent statements of funding and conflicts of interest. The purpose of this review is to examine the prevalence of these open practices in a random sample of articles published in special education journals in 2020.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-2">Open Practices</hd> <p> <emph>Preregistration</emph> involves publicly posting study plans (e.g., research questions, hypotheses, research design, analysis plan, data collection procedures) prior to conducting research ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]). Preregistration increases the transparency of the research process and provides a clear distinction between confirmatory (i.e., hypothesis-testing) and exploratory analyses ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]). It may also enhance the credibility of research findings by enabling detection of questionable research practices, such as hypothesizing after results are known, p-hacking, and selective-outcome reporting (see [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]). For example, selective-outcome reporting can be discovered by comparing preregistered plans with analyses in the research report. Research in medicine and psychology suggests preregistration is associated with smaller study effects, perhaps by discouraging the use of questionable research practices (see [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref18">59</reflink>]). Although preregistration is most common in quantitative group research, it can be used with other research designs (e.g., mixed methods, qualitative, and single-case designs; see Fleming, McLucas, et al., 2022; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Registered reports</emph> incorporate the principles of preregistration into a two-stage peer review process ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref22">55</reflink>]). During Stage 1, researchers submit prospective Introduction and Method sections of a yet-to-be-conducted study. Stage 1 review can result in rejection or in-principle acceptance, with the latter guaranteeing publication of the study once it is completed, regardless of the magnitude or direction of findings, if authors adhere to accepted study plans. After conducting, writing up, and submitting the study for Stage 2 review, the manuscript is evaluated for adherence to the approved protocol and appropriate interpretation and reporting of results. Registered reports are associated with a high proportion of null results ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref23">58</reflink>]), perhaps because publication depends on adherence to preregistered study plans.</p> <p> <emph>Open materials</emph> are study materials (e.g., researcher-created assessments, intervention protocols, interview prompts, integrity checklists) that are made freely accessible. Open materials enable other researchers to replicate studies ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]) and can also be used by practitioners and other researchers in their own work. Researchers can share materials via online repositories (e.g., Open Science Framework [OSF], Figshare) or as supplementary material on journal websites.</p> <p> <emph>Open data</emph> entail providing access to raw, yet curated, data from a study or project, typically by depositing data in a public repository, such as OSF, Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, or LDBase ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]). Data sharing enables other researchers to verify results of analyses reported in a study, conduct novel analyses of the same research questions to examine robustness of findings, and conduct analyses examining novel hypotheses ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]). Researchers should adhere to the "FAIR" principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) when sharing data so that others can access, open, and use the data ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref27">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to open data, researchers can also provide <emph>open analytic code or script</emph> to enable reproduction of study analyses. Different software programs or packages may have different defaults for a specific analysis that can lead to different statistical outcomes. Additionally, researchers make decisions in analyses that are not always stated in published manuscripts. Sharing which software and which specific analytic decisions were made are important for reproducing study analyses and verifying study findings ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref28">60</reflink>]). Analytic code can be shared on repositories or as supplementary material on journal websites.</p> <p> <emph>Replication</emph> is a crucial feature of the scientific method that serves to verify, extend, and refine results of previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref29">62</reflink>]). In direct replications, all aspects of a previous study (e.g., participants, setting, method) are recreated, whereas conceptual replications involve altering one or more study components ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]). Despite their important role in establishing the credibility of scientific findings, explicit replication studies represent approximately 0.5% of the published special education literature ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref31">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]), which—though a small proportion of the literature base—is larger than the proportion of replications found in education journals generally (0.1%; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref33">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whereas the aforementioned open practices are relevant specifically to empirical articles, open peer review, open access, and transparent statements of funding and conflicts of interest apply to all papers, including nonempirical publications. <emph>Open peer review</emph> is "an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science" ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref34">57</reflink>], p. 3), including open reports and open identities. In open reports, peer reviews are published alongside the article, providing readers transparent access to the feedback provided by reviewers. In open-identity peer review, reviewer and author identity is not masked. Open reports and identities can be used separately or in combination.</p> <p> <emph>Open access</emph> refers to making manuscripts freely available to the public ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref35">52</reflink>]). Multiple types of open-access publishing exist, including gold (authors pay an article-processing charge to publish in a journal in which all articles are freely accessible), hybrid (authors pay an article-processing charge to make a specific article freely available in a traditional journal), green (authors self-archive manuscripts, often prior to incorporating peer review; i.e., preprints), and bronze (although not licensed as open access, articles are made open for a period of time by the journal or publisher; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). The primary purpose of open access is to provide access to research and scholarship, which are often otherwise behind a publisher paywall. Perhaps due to increased accessibility, open-access articles are associated with greater downloads and citations ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). The Open Access Button (https://openaccessbutton.org/) is a tool for searching for open-access versions of articles on thousands of repositories ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]<emph>Publication Manual</emph> requires that authors <emph>disclose funder information and potential conflict of interest</emph> in author notes. These disclosures alert readers to issues that may have influenced (a) how researchers designed, conducted, interpreted, and reported empirical studies and (b) the perspectives of scholars expressed in nonempirical papers. However, there is a lack of consensus as to what does and does not constitute a conflict of interest, and conflict-of-interest and financial-support statements are not consistently provided in journal publications in other fields ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]). We are not aware of extant research examining the reporting of conflicts of interest or financial support for publications in special education.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref44">29</reflink>] and Hardwicke et al. (2022) reviewed the research bases in social science and psychology, respectively, for the presence of open practices "to gauge the collective impact of reform initiatives, track progress over time, and calibrate future efforts" ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>], p. 1). Among randomly selected samples of 250 journal articles published from 2014 to 2017, the authors found "minimal adoption" ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>], p. 2) of open practices, though some findings varied across fields. Specifically, 0% and 2% of empirical articles in the social sciences and psychology research bases were preregistered, respectively; less than 1% had open code in both reviews; 1% and 5% were explicit replications; 2% had open data in both reviews; 9% and 10% had open materials; a conflict of interest (or lack thereof) was disclosed in 15% and 39% of articles; 31% and 62% of articles provided statements regarding funding sources; and 40% and 65% of articles were available through open access.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-3">Purpose of the Review</hd> <p>Although scholars have described the potential of open practices to enhance special education scholarship (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref48">63</reflink>]) and have provided guidance for implementing them ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]), little research has examined whether and the degree to which such practices are applied in the special education research base (cf. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]). Although [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>] found that many education researchers reported engaging in open practices at least once, estimates were self-reported, do not indicate the actual proportion of articles in which open practices are used, and were not specific to special education. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to review the use of open practices in the special education literature to estimate the prevalence of these practices, inform efforts to increase the application of open practices, and serve as an initial baseline with which future practices can be compared.</p> <p>To facilitate comparisons between the literature bases in the social sciences and in psychology, we conceptually replicated the methods of [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]) and applied them to the special education literature base. The deviations we made from the procedures of these previous reviews include (a) randomly selecting articles from special education (rather than social sciences or psychology) journals published in 2020 (rather than 2014 to 2017, to capture practices in recent special education research), (b) adding coding for registered reports and open review because of our interest in these open practices, (c) not coding for use of a study in subsequent systematic reviews or meta-analyses (because we did not feel these variables were directly related to transparency, accessibility, or reproducibility), and (d) coding for but not analyzing registrations, which were reported in the previous reviews, as we did not identify any and felt that preregistration is more relevant to special education research.</p> <p>Our research question is, What is the prevalence of open practices in a random selection of articles published in special education journals in 2020? As reflected in our preregistration, we did not posit testable hypotheses but predicted that open practices would be generally scarce in the special education literature, similar to findings in social sciences and psychology ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]). Our preregistration is available at https://osf.io/ykwrn.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162601444-5">Sample of Journal Articles</hd> <p>As in [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]), we randomly selected a sample of 250 articles to review. Our population of articles to sample from were 2020 publications in journals classified as special education by Journal Citation Reports in 2020. We excluded <emph>International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities</emph> because it is described on its website as a book series rather than a journal. See Table 1 for a list of journals and the number and proportion of total articles reviewed from each journal. We identified all articles published in 2020 for each journal from journal websites. We excluded publications that were only one or two pages in length (because they were unlikely to be substantive articles or reports of research), errata and corrigenda, lists of reviewers, and editor's notes and previews, resulting in a population of 1,427 articles. We used an R package, randomizeR, to select randomly 250 of those articles to code.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Number of Articles Coded per Journal.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Journal</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">%</th><th align="center">JIF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>American Annals of the Deaf</italic></td><td>6</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.780</td></tr><tr><td><italic>American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>6</td><td>2.4</td><td>1.776</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Annals of Dyslexia</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.595</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Behavioral Disorders</italic></td><td>1</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.625</td></tr><tr><td><italic>British Journal of Learning Disabilities</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.922</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.808</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Child Language Teaching & Therapy</italic></td><td>1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.900</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Dyslexia</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.458</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0.776</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Education and Treatment of Children</italic></td><td>9</td><td>3.6</td><td>0.692</td></tr><tr><td><italic>European Journal of Special Needs Education</italic></td><td>8</td><td>3.2</td><td>1.184</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Exceptional Children</italic></td><td>9</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.255</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Exceptionality</italic></td><td>4</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.364</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.667</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Gifted Child Quarterly</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>2.14</td></tr><tr><td><italic>High Ability Studies</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.714</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Infants & Young Children</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.810</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>1.172</td></tr><tr><td><italic>International Journal of Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.800</td></tr><tr><td><italic>International Journal of Disability Development and Education</italic></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0.691</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Intervention in School and Clinic</italic></td><td>6</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.860</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Behavioral Education</italic></td><td>6</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.894</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education</italic></td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>1.521</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities</italic></td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>0.972</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Early Intervention</italic></td><td>2</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.932</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.976</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Fluency Disorders</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.691</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability</italic></td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>1.148</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</italic></td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>1.755</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Learning Disabilities</italic></td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>2.144</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities</italic></td><td>8</td><td>3.2</td><td>1.167</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions</italic></td><td>4</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.683</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Journal of Special Education</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.732</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Learning Disabilities Research & Practice</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.341</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Learning Disability Quarterly</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.250</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Reading & Writing Quarterly</italic></td><td>8</td><td>3.2</td><td>0.838</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Remedial and Special Education</italic></td><td>7</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.817</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities</italic></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>1.162</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders</italic></td><td>20</td><td>8</td><td>1.688</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Research in Developmental Disabilities</italic></td><td>30</td><td>12</td><td>1.836</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Topics in Early Childhood Special Education</italic></td><td>3</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.237</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. JIF = 2019 journal impact factor from Journal Citation Reports.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-6">Instrument</hd> <p>We adapted the coding forms shared by [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]). We excluded items related to articles being included in subsequent systematic reviews or meta-analyses, as that was beyond the scope of our interest, and added items coding whether articles (a) were registered reports and (b) reported information related to open review, as well as expanding and making slight modifications to definitions of some practices. The form consisted of 43 items and prompted coders to indicate the country of the corresponding author, the type of article or research design (i.e., nonempirical, original quantitative research, original single-case-design research, original qualitative research, secondary data analysis, systematic review or meta-analysis, or other), use of open review, open-access availability of manuscript, and statements of conflict of interest and funding for all articles. For empirical articles, we also coded for indication of preregistration, registered report, open materials, open data (data availability was not coded for secondary data analyses), open analytic code, and replication.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-7">Coding Procedures</hd> <p>Coders, eight doctoral students in special education who had recently completed a seminar in open science, were trained on the coding form by the lead investigator by discussing and collaboratively coding three articles published in special education journals in 2019 and 2021. Each coder then independently coded three articles published in special education journals in 2019 and 2021 and achieved at least 90% agreement with the lead investigator. We double coded 50% of articles (also randomly selected using randomizeR) to estimate interrater reliability. Coders, including the lead investigator, were randomly assigned as first and second coders to articles. To help guard against drift in coding (i.e., changes in rater behavior), we coded articles in three batches of 83, 83, and 84 articles. After each batch, coders met and discussed any issues and questions and collectively resolved any disagreements that were not reconciled by discussion between the two assigned coders.</p> <p>Cohen's Kappa for all double-coded items was <emph>к</emph> = 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.87, 0.90]), indicating substantial agreement among coders ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]). In addition to an overall <emph>к</emph>, we also calculated <emph>к</emph> for each section of the coding form. For almost all sections, agreement can be interpreted as substantial or perfect (i.e., descriptive items, <emph>к</emph> = 0.94 [0.91, 0.96]; registered reports, <emph>к</emph> = 0.96 [0.92, 0.99]; open data, <emph>к</emph> = 0.78 [0.70, 0.85]; preregistration, <emph>к</emph> = 0.68 [0.46, 0.90]; open materials, <emph>к</emph> = 0.63 [0.57, 0.70]; and all remaining items, <emph>к</emph> = 0.86 [0.84, 0.89]). Replication items were coded with moderate reliability (i.e., <emph>к</emph> = 0.58 [0.47, 0.69]) and open-analytic-code items had fair interrater reliability <emph>к</emph> = 0.39 [0.20, 0.58]). Four disagreements occurred when coding replications, three of which were related to the term "replication" being used in a way that did not indicate replication of a previous study (e.g., authors recommending that the study be replicated). The relatively low kappa for open analytic coding was due to the low incidence of this practice. Only one disagreement occurred, when study authors referred to providing codes for conducting direct observations of behavior (rather than analytic code). We performed all kappa estimations using the psych package in R.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-8">Non-Preregistered Analyses</hd> <p>In addition to the descriptive analyses specified in the preregistration, we ran several analyses that were not preregistered to explore factors related to the reported presence of open practices that might inform future research. Specifically, we conducted chi-square analyses to explore the association between reported use of open practices and (a) country of the lead author (coded as binary United States vs. non–United States), and (b) study design. We also conducted Poisson regression to examine the relation of reported open practices to journal impact factor (JIF; i.e., 2019 JIFs reported by Journal Citation Reports). The null hypotheses for these analyses posited no relation between (a) reported open practices and (b) author country, study design, or JIF.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162601444-10">Sample of Articles</hd> <p>Lead or corresponding authors were from 35 countries. For most articles (55%, <emph>n</emph> = 138), the lead author's affiliation was in the United States. The United Kingdom (8%, <emph>n</emph> = 19), Australia (6%, <emph>n</emph> = 14), Canada (4%, <emph>n</emph> = 9), and China and Spain (both 3%, <emph>n</emph> = 8) were the countries other than the United States most often represented. Most articles were original quantitative research (51%, <emph>n</emph> = 128), followed by original qualitative studies (16%, <emph>n</emph> = 41), original single-case-design studies (12%, <emph>n</emph> = 30), nonempirical articles (12%, <emph>n</emph> = 29), secondary data analyses (8%, <emph>n</emph> = 21), syntheses or meta-analyses (8%, <emph>n</emph> = 19), and original mixed-methods studies (7%, <emph>n</emph> = 18).</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-11">Descriptive Analyses</hd> <p>Most articles (87%, <emph>n</emph> = 217) reported using at least one of the 10 open practices coded in this review. Authors reported engaging in none of the open practices in 36 articles (14%), one open practice in 55 articles (22%), two open practices in 82 articles (33%), three open practices in 63 articles (25%), four open practices in 12 articles (5%), and five open practices in two articles (<1%). Because (a) providing conflict-of-interest and funding statements frequently appeared to be a matter of journal policy and (b) many of the open practices apply only to empirical articles, we also report the number of empirical articles reporting to engage in the eight open practices besides transparent statements of conflict of interest and funding (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, open analytic code, open access, open peer review, and replication). About half of the empirical articles (54%, <emph>n</emph> = 120) did not report using any of these open practices. Of the research studies reporting use of open practices, 86 (39%) used one, 13 (6%) used two, and two (<1%) used three.</p> <p>In the following sections, we report descriptive findings for open practices coded in all articles, followed by open practices coded just for empirical articles. See Table 2 for a summary of the number and percentage of articles engaging in each open practice and Figures 1 and 2 for graphic representations of reported engagement in each open practice.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Prevalence of open practices applicable to all articles.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Prevalence of open practices applicable to empirical articles. Open data add to 200 due to the exclusion of articles analyzing secondary data; all other practices add to 221.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Number and Percentage of Eligible Publications Engaging in Open Practices.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Open practice</th><th align="center">Number of publications</th><th align="center">Eligible publications</th><th align="center">Percentage of publications</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Any of 10 open practices</td><td>217</td><td>250</td><td>87%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Any of eight open practices besides conflict-of-interest and funding statements</td><td>120</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>54%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Preregistration</td><td>4</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Registered report</td><td>0</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open materials (indicated)</td><td>46</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open materials (attained)</td><td>38</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open data (indicated)</td><td>14</td><td align="center">200<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open data (attained)</td><td>3</td><td align="center">200<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td align="center">1.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open analytic code (indicated)</td><td>1</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td><1%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open analytic code (attained)</td><td>0</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Replication</td><td>9</td><td align="center">221<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open peer review</td><td>0</td><td>250</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Open access</td><td>58</td><td>250</td><td>23%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conflict-of-interest statement</td><td>164</td><td>250</td><td>66%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Funding statement</td><td>159</td><td>250</td><td>64%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Only reports of empirical studies considered.</item> <item>3 Only reports of original empirical studies considered (i.e., secondary data analyses not considered).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0162601444-12">Open practices coded for all articles</hd> <p>Transparent statements of conflict of interest (66%, <emph>n</emph> = 164) and funding (64%, <emph>n</emph> = 159) were the most frequently observed. Of articles with conflict-of-interest statements, no conflict of interest was indicated in 159 articles (97%), whereas a conflict of interest was explicitly indicated in five articles (3%). Of articles with a funding statement, 117 (74%) indicated a funding source, whereas 42 (26%) stated a lack of funding. The Open Access Button indicated that 58 articles (23%) were openly accessible. We found no indication of open peer review in any articles.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-13">Open practices coded only for empirical articles</hd> <p>Study materials were indicated as being available in 46 empirical articles (21%). One article explicitly stated materials were not available, and the remaining articles (79%, <emph>n</emph> = 174) did not mention availability of materials. In 10 of the 46 articles indicating open materials, authors noted that materials were available upon request from the authors. In the 36 articles with directly shared materials, open materials were available in the articles (<emph>n</emph> = 25; e.g., in an appendix, table, or figure), in independent repositories (<emph>n</emph> = 5), as supplementary files on the article webpage (<emph>n</emph> = 4), and on other webpages (<emph>n</emph> = 2). Authors shared observation and measurement instruments (<emph>n</emph> = 22), stimuli used in experiments (<emph>n</emph> = 12), intervention protocols or directions (<emph>n</emph> = 6), and search procedures for syntheses and meta-analyses (<emph>n</emph> = 3). We emailed the 10 lead authors of articles indicating that materials were available on request and received responses from three, two emails were returned as undeliverable, and we did not receive a response from five authors. One author emailed all materials needed to replicate the study, including data collection instruments, research stimuli or materials, intervention protocols, and other materials (e.g., consent and assent forms). Another author emailed multiple materials, including data collection instruments, research stimuli or materials, and intervention protocols. The third author provided detailed student information for participants in studies reviewed, which did not meet our criteria for open materials needed to replicate a study. Ultimately, then, shared materials were available from 38 (17%) empirical publications.</p> <p>Authors of 14 original empirical articles (7%) indicated data were available, two (1%) stated that data were not available, and authors of the remaining 184 articles (92%) did not indicate data availability (note that we examined only the 200 articles reporting original research for open data). In three of the articles indicating data availability, it was noted that data were available on request. Of the remaining 11 articles indicating data availability, links purporting to lead to open data were provided. Clicking on the links resulted in accessing six files containing supplementary materials (e.g., intervention procedures, stimuli, figures) but no raw data, two files indicating that data were available on request, and three interoperable data files with participant data. We emailed requests for data to the lead authors of the five articles noting data were available on request. Three authors did not reply, and two declined to provide the requested data. Thus, we were ultimately able to retrieve data for three (1.5%) original empirical articles.</p> <p>One empirical article (<1%) indicated analytic code was available on request, one article specifically stated code was not available (<1%), and the remaining 219 empirical articles (99%) did not mention the availability of analytic code. In response to our email request, the lead author of the article noting availability of code on request indicated they were attempting to locate the code, but we did not ultimately receive the analytic code.</p> <p>Nine empirical articles (4%) were explicitly identified as replications using the term "replicat*". Replication status was not specified (using the term "replicat*") for the remaining 212 studies (96%). Authors reported that four (2%) empirical articles were preregistered; the remaining 217 empirical articles (98%) did not mention preregistration status. The links and registration numbers provided in each of the four preregistered studies led to accessible preregistrations at OSF, ClinicalTrials.org, and Prospero (two studies). All preregistrations included Research Questions or Hypotheses and Method sections; three preregistrations also included Analysis sections. No empirical articles were published as registered reports.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-14">Non-Preregistered Analyses</hd> <p>We explored whether there were differences in the reported use of open practices as a function of (a) nationality of lead author (United States or non–United States), (b) study design, and (c) JIF. Reported use of any of the 10 open practices differed as a function of location of the lead author, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) = 7.64, <emph>p</emph> =.006. Whereas 110 out of 138 (80%) articles with lead authors in the United States reported use of one or more open practices, almost all the non-U.S. authors did (i.e., 104 out of 112, 93%). This difference seems primarily driven by open-access publishing: More non-U.S. articles were published as open access than U.S. articles, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) = 16.58, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Prevalence did not differ significantly as a function of location of the lead author for any of the other open practices (see Table 3).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Results of Exploratory Chi-Square Analyses by Lead Author's Country.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Open-science practice</th><th align="center">χ<sup>2</sup>(<italic>df</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Any open practice</td><td>7.64(1)</td><td>.006</td></tr><tr><td>Preregistration</td><td>0.30(1)</td><td>.582</td></tr><tr><td>Open materials</td><td>1.67(2)</td><td>.434</td></tr><tr><td>Open data</td><td>3.61(2)</td><td>.165</td></tr><tr><td>Open analytic code</td><td>2.00(2)</td><td>.367</td></tr><tr><td>Replication</td><td>0.37(1)</td><td>.541</td></tr><tr><td>Open access</td><td>16.58(1)</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict-of-interest statement</td><td>0.66(1)</td><td>.418</td></tr><tr><td>Funding statement</td><td>0.75(1)</td><td>.388</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. Non-U.S. authors were significantly more likely to report engaging in any open practices and to publish open-access articles. No articles were registered reports or engaged in open peer review, which were therefore not included in the analysis.</p> <p>Reported use of any open practice also varied as a function of study design, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>) = 33.92, <emph>p</emph> <.001. This difference also seems driven by open-access publishing. Original quantitative studies were openly accessible at a higher rate compared with the other study designs, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>) = 14.97, <emph>p</emph> =.011. Conflict-of-interest and funding statements were not significantly different across study designs, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) = 7.44, <emph>p</emph> =.19; χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>) = 10.73, <emph>p</emph> =.06. Chi-square values for the other open practices could not be calculated due to a large number of cells with no values.</p> <p>Results from the Poisson regression models suggest JIF is not associated with reported use of any open practice but is related to replication and including funding statements specifically. A 1-point increase in JIF is associated with a positive 1.23 log change in number of articles expected to be replications (β = 1.23 [0.39, 2.07], <emph>p</emph> =.004) and a positive 0.30 log change in number of articles expected to include a funding statement (β =.30 [0.07, 0.53], <emph>p</emph> =.011). See Table 4 for results of the nonsignificant models.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Results of Poisson Regression Models for Journal Impact Factor.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="center" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Open-science practice</th><th align="center">β [95% CI]</th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Any open practice</td><td>0.10 [−0.11, 0.31]</td><td>0.11</td><td>.345</td></tr><tr><td>Preregistration</td><td>1.16 [−0.10, 2.42]</td><td>0.65</td><td>.072</td></tr><tr><td>Open materials</td><td>−0.17 [−0.68, 0.34]</td><td>0.26</td><td>.517</td></tr><tr><td>Open data</td><td><−0.001 [−0.90, 0.88]</td><td>0.45</td><td>.988</td></tr><tr><td>Open analytic code</td><td>−74.85 [−563.65, 413.95]</td><td>249.39</td><td>.764</td></tr><tr><td>Replication</td><td>1.23 [0.39, 2.07]</td><td>0.42</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Open access</td><td>0.21 [−0.19, 0.60]</td><td>0.20</td><td>.305</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict-of-interest statement</td><td>−0.10 [−0.35, 0.16]</td><td>0.13</td><td>.457</td></tr><tr><td>Funding statement</td><td>0.30 [0.07, 0.53]</td><td>0.12</td><td>.011</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. No articles were registered reports or engaged in open peer review, which were therefore not included in the analysis. CI = confidence interval.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-15">Discussion</hd> <p>Open practices have the potential to increase the transparency, accessibility, and replicability of special education research and scholarship. However, the prevalence of open practices in the special education literature base has not been investigated. In this review, we examined a variety of open practices in a random sample of 250 articles published in special education journals in 2020. Although we found most articles included statements reporting conflicts of interest (66%) and funding support (64%) and that some empirical articles were openly accessible (23%) and provided shared materials (17%), other open practices were rarely used: 4% of studies were explicit replications, 2% of studies were preregistered, 1% of empirical articles provided open data, and none shared analytic code, were registered reports, or used open peer review.</p> <p>Approximately two-thirds of authors transparently reported conflicts of interest and funding, which is a higher rate than reported in recent reviews of the social science (31% of articles with funding statements and 15% with conflict-of-interest statements; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]) and psychology (62% of articles with funding statements and 39% with conflict-of-interest statements; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]) literature. These statements appear to be fairly normative in special education publishing, and journals often solicit and report them rather than require that authors choose to include the statements within their manuscripts. As such, these might be considered low-effort practices, requiring little time, planning, or expertise. Only five statements (3% of conflict-of-interest statements) indicated a conflict, three of which were financial in nature (i.e., authors were paid to provide intervention studies, used an instrument owned by a spouse's company, and had plans to commercialize the intervention investigated) and two were related to family (i.e., authors had children with disabilities with conditions like those in the study sample).</p> <p>A small but meaningful proportion of articles were identified as being freely accessible (23% of all articles) and provided shared materials (17% of empirical articles). Although these practices involve some effort (e.g., posting an unformatted version of the manuscript on a preprint server, uploading materials to the journal website), they require minimal planning, time, or expertise. Open-access versions of articles in special education were identified less frequently than in previous reviews in the social sciences (40%; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]), in psychology (65%; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>]), and across disciplines (45%; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>]). It is possible that posting freely accessible versions of manuscripts on preprint servers is not yet a common norm in special education as it is in other fields ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]). In contrast, open materials were observed more frequently in special education journals than in the social sciences (9%; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref74">29</reflink>]) or psychology (10%; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]). This may be an artifact of our coding procedures; we did not require materials to be shared as separate, downloadable files but included materials that were shared in figures and tables in articles, which accounted for most (54%) of the open materials observed. It is important to note that authors tended to share one or two materials; no articles directly shared all materials needed to replicate a study, though one author emailed us all relevant materials.</p> <p>The low prevalence of empirical articles that shared data (1.5%) or analytic code (0%) or that were preregistered (2%) or replications (4%) was similar to findings from recent reviews in the social sciences (2% with open data, <1% with open code, 0% preregistered, 1% replications; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]) and psychology (2% with open data, <1% with open code, 2% preregistered, 5% replications; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]). We additionally coded for registered reports and open peer review and identified none. All these practices involve planning, effort, and expertise. Moreover, they represent change from typical research practices in the field. For example, preregistration requires researchers to conceptualize and write up study details before conducting the study, which can be difficult, time-consuming, and novel (see [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref78">46</reflink>]). Similarly, open data can require considerable time and expertise to prepare data for sharing (e.g., cleaning, deidentifying, creating metadata, making interoperable). Additionally, data sharing can raise ethical concerns and is perceived as unfair by some researchers ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]). The lack of registered reports and open peer review is not surprising given that (a) few special education journals accept registered reports as submissions ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]) and (b) we are not aware of any special education journals that engage in open peer review.</p> <p>Although only 4% of studies were explicitly identified as replications, this is a notably larger proportion than identified in previous reviews of publications in special education (0.4%, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>]; 0.5%, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>]), suggesting that publication of replications may be increasing in the field. Of the nine replication studies, six were original quantitative research and three were original single-case designs. Authors of three of the replication studies explicitly indicated that the study was a conceptual or partial replication, whereas no authors indicated their studies were direct replications.</p> <p>We were unable to obtain data, materials, and code noted as being available in some articles. Of 11 articles that provided a link to open data, materials (rather than data) were provided at the link in six articles and links led to statements that data were available on request in two articles. Materials, data, and analytic code were noted as being available on request in 10, five, and one article, respectively. We emailed requests to each author and ultimately received three materials and no data or code. Collectively, of the 61 instances of articles indicating or providing availability of open resources, we obtained materials, data, and analytic code for only 42 studies (69%). Our success rate was especially low for open data; we obtained three data sets, though availability of data was indicated in 14 articles. This is primarily due to invalid emails and authors not responding to requests for materials, data, and code that were noted as being available on request, which has been identified as an issue in many fields (see [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>]). It is worth noting that none of the three data files provided data at the item level; instead, authors provided mostly summary data, such as percentages or total scores on tests. Additionally, none of the data files included sufficient documentation to enable others to use the data without referencing the corresponding article.</p> <p>Non-preregistered analyses indicated that articles with non-U.S. lead authors were more likely to be openly accessible. This finding appears to be driven, at least in part, by the high prevalence of open-access publishing by authors located in Europe and the United Kingdom particularly. Whereas 18 of 138 articles (13%) with lead authors located in the United States were available as open access, 28 of 63 articles (43%) with lead authors in Europe and 10 of 19 articles (53%) with lead authors specifically in the United Kingdom were identified as open access. This contrasts with the findings of no differences between U.S. and non-U.S. education researchers in self-reported open-access publishing ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref84">40</reflink>]) but is consistent with patterns in open-access publishing across fields identified by [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref85">56</reflink>] and may be associated with policies supporting open practices in Europe (see [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref86">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>We also found JIF to be positively associated with replication and funding statements. This finding appears driven by the relatively large number of replication studies published in journals with the highest JIFs. Of nine total replications, two were published in <emph>Exceptional Children</emph> (highest JIF among special education journals) and six replications were published in journals ranked in the top seven in terms of JIF. The association between JIF and replication, though based on a small number of replications, may reflect the growing recognition and appreciation of replications among researchers in special education and related fields ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref89">53</reflink>]). As most funding statements indicated that funding had been provided, it is possible the link between JIF and funding statements may reflect a propensity for funded studies, with the financial support to recruit large samples and collect longitudinal data, to be published in high-impact journals. Alternatively, it is possible that high-impact journals are more likely to have policies and procedures requiring authors to indicate funding.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-16">Limitations</hd> <p>Study findings should be considered within the context of multiple limitations. Similar to recent reviews examining the presence of open practices in addiction medicine ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]), cardiology ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]), obstetrics and gynecology ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref92">54</reflink>]), oncology ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref93">65</reflink>]), orthopedics ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref94">19</reflink>]), plastic surgery ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref95">5</reflink>]), psychology ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref96">28</reflink>]), and the social sciences ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref97">29</reflink>]), we sampled only 250 studies (from a pool of 1,427 articles). Although we randomly selected these studies, results from a larger sample may have differed. Moreover, we sampled articles published in a single year and only from journals classified as special education by Journal Citation Reports. Including other journals from other years may have resulted in different findings. Although coding was generally reliable, it is possible that some practices for specific articles were miscoded. It is also important to note that we did not follow up on nonresponses to our emails requesting materials, data, and code for articles indicating that they were available on request. Response rate may have been higher with repeated requests.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-17">Implications and Recommendations</hd> <p>Findings that open practices theorized to increase the transparency, accessibility, and replicability of scholarship were, in general, rarely observed in the special education literature base have implications for research, policy, and practices. The Pew Research Center (2019) found that "a majority of U.S. adults (57%) say they trust scientific research findings more if the researchers make their data publicly available" (p. 24). Thus, by adopting open practices, like open data, at a higher rate, special education researchers may enhance perceptions of trust in the research base, which—in turn—may promote uptake of that research by policy makers and practitioners. Although we are optimistic regarding the potential for open practices to complement ongoing efforts to strengthen the special education research base, it is important to recognize that research (e.g., previously conducted studies) can be valid and influential without being open and that being open is no guarantee of validity or influence.</p> <p>It is encouraging that, even in the absence of established norms, special education scholars often engaged in low-effort open practices (statement of funding and conflict of interest) and sometimes engaged in moderate-effort open practices (e.g., open materials, open-access publishing); a few early adopters even engaged in high-effort open practices, such as preregistration and data sharing. The pattern of high-cost open practices (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open data) being implemented least often suggests that, although special educators tend to support open practices in concept (Fleming, Wilson, et al., 2022), the costs of engaging in these practices are greater than the reward. From a behavioral perspective, stakeholders (e.g., researchers, institutions of higher education, professional organizations, journals, funding agencies) should consider manipulating researchers' antecedents and consequences to change researchers' behavior ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref98">45</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref99">43</reflink>] recommended that infrastructure, user training and experiences, communities, incentives, and policies can be changed to make broad engagement in open practices possible, easy, normative, rewarding, and required. Although some resources (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref101">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref102">36</reflink>]) and policies (e.g., Institute of Education Sciences' [2021] Standards for Excellence in Education Research) supporting the use of open practices exist, more are needed to move beyond current levels of adoption. Moreover, additional research is needed to understand the effects of these and other supports and policies on changing researcher behavior better.</p> <p>Given our low success rate for obtaining resources that were noted as being available on request, we echo Tedersoo et al.'s (2021) recommendation that journal editors prohibit such statements. Our lack of success in accessing data reported to be available on request is similar to recent findings in other fields. For example, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>] obtained data from only 123 (6.8%) of 1,792 authors who reported that data were available on request in articles from BioMed Central published in 2019.</p> <p>We also recommend that this study be replicated to assess future use of open practices in special education, with these findings serving as benchmarks. Comparing future findings to current outcomes can gauge the success of efforts and policies to promote the use of open practices in the field as well as identify slow-growth practices in need of more intensive support. Finally, we encourage other researchers to use the open materials, data, and code from this study (available on OSF at https://osf.io/f65xc/) to examine the robustness of our findings, explore new research questions, and conduct original research.</p> <hd id="AN0162601444-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>A variety of open practices have been theorized to increase the transparency, accessibility, and replicability of science. Findings from our review of 250 randomly selected articles published in 2020 in special education journals suggest that although open practices that require little effort (i.e., providing conflict-of-interest and funding statements) are fairly common, practices requiring greater effort (i.e., posting open-access versions of articles, sharing materials) were occasionally observed, and practices requiring the most effort (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, sharing data, sharing analytic code, and conducting replications) were rare or not observed at all.</p> <ref id="AN0162601444-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref62" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adewumi M. T., Vo N., Tritz D., Beaman J., Vassar M. (2021). An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature. Addictive Behaviors, 112, 106560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref100" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen C., Mehler D. M. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17(5), e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition. Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref91" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson J. M., Wright B., Rauh S., Tritz D., Horn J., Parker I., Bergeron D., Cook S., Vassar M. (2021). Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature. Heart (British Cardiac Society), 107(2), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref64" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ascha M., Katabi L., Stevens E., Gatherwright J., Vassar M. (2022). Reproducible research practices in the plastic surgery literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 149(4), 810e–823e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker M. (2016). Reproducibility crisis. Nature, 533(26), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Banerjee R. (2022). Replication research in education: Is the tide turning? Educational Research and Evaluation, 27(1–2), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.2022311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref86" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burgelman J. C., Pascu C., Szkuta K., Von Schomberg R., Karalopoulos A., Repanas K., Schouppe M. (2019). Open science, open data, and open scholarship: European policies to make science fit for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Big Data, 2, 43. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref88" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chhin C. S., Taylor K. A., Wei W. S. (2018). Supporting a culture of replication: An examination of education and special education research grants funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 594–605. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18788047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chivers T. (2019). Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem? Nature, 571(7763), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02041-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Fleming J. I., Hart S. A., Lane K. L., Therrien W. J., van Dijk W., Wilson S. E. (2022). A how-to guide for open-science practices in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 43(4), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211019100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Maggin D. M., Robertson R. E. (2021). Registered reports in special education: Introduction to the special series. Remedial and Special Education, 42(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521996459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Therrien W. J., Coyne M. D. (Eds.). (2016). Replication in special education research [Special issue]. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook E. I., McArthur J. (2017). What is Open Access Button? An interview with Joe McArthur. Serials Librarian. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2017.1391152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne M. D., Cook B. G., Therrien W. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dechartres A., Ravaud P., Atal I., Riveros C., Boutron I. (2016). Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: A meta-epidemiological study. BMC Medicine, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0639-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Errington, T. M., Mathur, M., Soderberg, C. K., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. Elife, 10, e71601. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fladie I., Evans S., Checketts J., Tritz D., Norris B., Vassar M. (2021). An evaluation of reproducibility and transparency indicators in orthopedic literature. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 14, 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1111.jebm.12457</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming J. I., Cook B. G. (2022). Open access in special education: A review of journal and publisher policies. Remedial and Special Education, 43(1), 3–14. https://doi.org.10.1177/0741932521996461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming J. I., McLucas A. S., Cook B. G. (2022). Review of four preregistration registries for special education researchers [Unpublished manuscript]. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/7ujgs</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming J. I., Wilson S. E., Espinas D., van Dijk W., Cook B. G. (2022). Special education researchers' knowledge, attitudes, and reported use of open science practices [Unpublished manuscript]. https://edarxiv.org/tyc36/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu D. Y., Hughey J. J. (2019). Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. Elife, 8, e52646. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabelica M., Bojčić R., Puljak L. (2022). Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 150, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehlbach H., Robinson C. D. (2018). Mitigating illusory results through preregistration in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1387950</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2021). From old school to open science: The implications of new research norms for educational psychology and beyond. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gershenson, S., Polikoff, M. S., & Wang, R. (2020). When paywall goes AWOL: The demand for open–access education research. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X2090983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardwicke T. E., Thibault R. T., Kosie J. E., Wallach J. D., Kidwell M. C., Ioannidis J. P. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardwicke T. E., Wallach J. D., Kidwell M. C., Bendixen T., Crüwell S., Ioannidis J. P. (2020). An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014–2017). Royal Society Open Science, 7(2), 190806. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haven T. L., Errington T. M., Gleditsch K. S., van Grootel L., Jacobs A. M., Kern F. G., Pineiro R., Rosenblatt F., Mokkink L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houtkoop B. L., Chambers C., Macleod M., Bishop D. V., Nichols T. E., Wagenmakers E. J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917751886</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Education Sciences. (2021). Standards for excellence in education research. https://ies.ed.gov/seer/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976114309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson A. H., Cook B. G. (2019). Preregistration in single-case design research. Exceptional Children, 86(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919868529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan R. M., Irvin V. L. (2015). Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0132382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein O., Hardwicke T. E., Aust F., Breuer J., Danielsson H., Mohr A. H., Nilsonne G., Vanpaemel N., Frank M. C. (2018). A practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemons C. J., King S. A., Davidson K. A., Berryessa T. L., Gajjar S. A., Sacks L. H. (2016). An inadvertent concurrent replication: Same roadmap, different journey. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516631116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan J. A. R., Hart S. A., Schatschneider C. (2021). Data sharing in education science. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211006475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makel M. C., Hodges J., Cook B. G., Plucker J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makel M. C., Plucker J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makel M. C., Plucker J. A., Freeman J., Lombardi A., Simonsen B., Coyne M. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 205–212. https://doi/org/10.1177/0741932516646083.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mellor D. (2021). Improving norms in research culture to incentivize transparency and rigor. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miguel E., Camerer C., Casey K., Cohen J., Esterling K. M., Gerber A., Glennerster R., Green D. P., Humphreys M., Imbens G., Laitin D., Madon T., Nelson L., Nosek B. A., Petersen M., Sedlmayr R., Simmons J. P., Simonsohn U., Van der Laan M. (2014). Social science. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norris E., O'Connor D. B. (2019). Science as behaviour: Using a behaviour change approach to increase uptake of open science. Psychology & Health, 34(12), 1397–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1679373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nosek B. A., Beck E. D., Campbell L., Flake J. K., Hardwicke T. E., Mellor D. T., van't Veer A. E., Vazire S. (2019). Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nosek B. A., Ebersole C. R., DeHaven A. C., Mellor D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odom S. L., Brantlinger E., Gersten R., Horner R. H., Thompson B., Harris K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papageorgiou S. N., Xavier G. M., Cobourne M. T., Eliades T. (2018). Registered trials report less beneficial treatment effects than unregistered ones: A meta-epidemiological study in orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 100, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pew Research Center. (2019). Trust and mistrust in Americans' views of scientific experts. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/08/PS%5f08.02.19%5ftrust.in%5f.scientists%5fFULLREPORT%5f8.5.19.pdf">www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/08/PS%5f08.02.19%5ftrust.in%5f.scientists%5fFULLREPORT%5f8.5.19.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piwowar H., Priem J., Larivière V., Alperin J. P., Matthias L., Norlander B., Farley A., West J., Haustein S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. Peer Journal of Life and Environmental Sciences, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plucker J. A., Makel M. C. (2021). Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rauh S., Bowers A., Rorah D., Tritz D., Pate H., Frye L., Vassar M. (2022). Evaluating the reproducibility of research in obstetrics and gynecology. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 269, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.12.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich J., Gehlbach H., Albers C. J. (2020). "Like upgrading from a typewriter to a computer": Registered reports in education research. AERA Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420917640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson-Garcia N., Costas R., van Leeuwen T. N. (2020). Open access uptake by universities worldwide. PeerJ, 8, e9410. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross-Hellauer T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245921100746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silberzahn R., Uhlmann E. L., Martin D. P., Anselmi P., Aust F., Awtrey E., Bahník Š., Bai F., Bannard C., Bonnier E., Carlsson R., Cheung F., Christensen G., Clay R., Craig M. A., Dalla Rosa A., Dam L., Evans M. H., Flores Cervantes I.,.. Nosek B. A. (2018). Many analysts, one data set: Making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747646</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tedersoo L., Küngas R., Oras E., Köster K., Eenmaa H., Leijen Ä, Pedaste M., Raju M., Astapova A., Lukner H., Kogermann K., Sepp T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific Data, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Travers J. C., Cook B. G., Therrien W. J., Coyne M. D. (2016). Replication research and special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Dijk W., Schatschneider C., Hart S. A. (2021). Open science in education science. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420945267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazire S. (2018). Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walters C., Harter Z. J., Wayant C., Vo N., Warren M., Chronister J., Tritz D., Vassar M. (2019). Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature. BMJ Open, 9(12), e033962. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkinson M. D., Dumontier M., Aalbersberg I. J., Appleton G., Axton M., Baak A., Blomberg N., Boiten J., Bonino da Silva Santos L., Bourne P. E., Bouwman J., Brookes A. J., Clark T., Crosas M., Dillo I., Dumon O., Edmunds S., Evelo C. T., Finkers R.,.. Mons B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0162601444-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Authors' Note The third to ninth authors contributed equally to the manuscript and are listed in random order. This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305B200020) and the Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Grant Nos. H325D180108 and H325D190048).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ORCID iDs Bryan G. Cook https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-0873 Lindsay M. Griendling https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5243-990X Rachelle M. Johnson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8416-9262</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Open-Science Badges</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>For preregistering their research plan and for publishing their materials and data, Cook et al. received badges for preregistration, open materials, and open data. The public content may be retrieved from https://osf.io/ykwrn and https://osf.io/f65xc/. Manuscript received May 2022; accepted November 2022.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bryan G. Cook; Wilhelmina van Dijk; Isabel Vargas; Susan M. Aigotti; Jesse I. Fleming; Sean D. McDonald; Cassidi L. Richmond; Lindsay M. Griendling; Alan S. McLucas and Rachelle M. Johnson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1371868
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+Bryan+G%2E%22">Cook, Bryan G.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-0873">0000-0001-9294-0873</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+Dijk%2C+Wilhelmina%22">van Dijk, Wilhelmina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vargas%2C+Isabel%22">Vargas, Isabel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aigotti%2C+Susan+M%2E%22">Aigotti, Susan M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fleming%2C+Jesse+I%2E%22">Fleming, Jesse I.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McDonald%2C+Sean+D%2E%22">McDonald, Sean D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richmond%2C+Cassidi+L%2E%22">Richmond, Cassidi L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Griendling%2C+Lindsay+M%2E%22">Griendling, Lindsay M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5243-990X">0000-0002-5243-990X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McLucas%2C+Alan+S%2E%22">McLucas, Alan S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnson%2C+Rachelle+M%2E%22">Johnson, Rachelle M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8416-9262">0000-0002-8416-9262</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Exceptional+Children%22"><i>Exceptional Children</i></searchLink>. Apr 2023 89(3):238-255.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)<br />Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305B200020<br />H325D180108<br />H325D190048
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Open+Educational+Resources%22">Open Educational Resources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Information%22">Access to Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00144029221145195
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0014-4029<br />2163-5560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Open practices, such as preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, open analytic code, replication, open peer review, open access, and conflict-of-interest and funding statements, support the transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility of research and other scholarship. The purpose of this review was to examine the prevalence of these open practices in the special education literature. We reviewed a randomly selected sample of 250 articles published in special education journals in 2020. Results indicated that conflict-of-interest and funding statements were present in most articles; a small but meaningful proportion of articles provided open materials and were open access; and preregistration, registered reports, open data, open analytic code, open peer review, and replication were rarely or never observed. Recommendations for researching and supporting the use of open practices in special education scholarship are provided.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/ykwrn
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1371868
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1371868
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00144029221145195
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 238
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Open Educational Resources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Bryan G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Dijk, Wilhelmina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vargas, Isabel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aigotti, Susan M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fleming, Jesse I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McDonald, Sean D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richmond, Cassidi L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Griendling, Lindsay M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McLucas, Alan S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnson, Rachelle M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0014-4029
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5560
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 89
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Exceptional Children
              Type: main
ResultId 1