Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT): A Joint Statement by Political Science Journal Editors

AbstractIn this paper, we initiate a discussion within the Canadian political science community about research openness and its implications for our discipline. This discussion is important because the Tri-Agency has recently released guidelines on data management and because a number of political science journals, from several subfields, have signed the Journal Editors’ Transparency Statement requiring data access and research transparency (DA-RT). As norms regarding research openness develop, an increasing number and range of journals and funding agencies may begin to implement DA-RT-type requirements. If Canadian political scientists wish to continue to participate in the global political science community, we must take careful note of and be proactive participants in the ongoing developments concerning research openness.

Download Full-text

Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096517002554 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 (02) ◽

pp. 416-421 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Sean Yom

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Real Time ◽

Review Process ◽

Data Access ◽

Natural Sciences ◽

Research Practices ◽

Research Activities ◽

Strategic Incentives ◽

Research Transparency ◽

Institutional Strategies

ABSTRACTAs a pillar of Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT), analytic transparency calls for radical honesty about how political scientists infer conclusions from their data. However, honesty about one’s research practices often means discarding the linguistic template of deductive proceduralism that structures most writing, which in turn diminishes the prospects for successful publication. This dissonance reflects a unique dilemma: transparency initiatives reflect a vision of research drawn from the biomedical and natural sciences, and struggle with the messier, iterative, and open-ended nature of political science scholarship. Analytic transparency requires not only better individual practices, such as active citations, but also institutional strategies that reward radical honesty. Journals can provide authors with protected space to reveal research practices, further blind the review process, and experiment with special issues. More broadly, analytic openness can be mandated through procedural monitoring, such as real-time recording of research activities and keystroke logging for statistical programs.

Download Full-text

How Many Citations to Women Is “Enough”? Estimates of Gender Representation in Political Science

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096519001173 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 53 (1) ◽

pp. 107-113

Author(s):

Michelle L. Dion ◽

Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Research Field ◽

Gender Representation ◽

Science Journal ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Editorial Boards ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Research Areas ◽

Implicit Biases ◽

Political Science Journals

ABSTRACTRecent studies identified gendered citation gaps in political science journal articles, with male scholars being less likely to cite work by female scholars in comparison to their female peers. Although journal editors, editorial boards, and political scientists are becoming more aware of implicit biases and adopting strategies to remedy them, we know less about the proper baselines for citations in subfields and research areas of political science. Without information about how many women should be cited in a research field, it is difficult to know whether the distribution is biased. Using the gender distribution of membership in professional political science organizations and article authors in 38 political science journals, we provide scholars with suggested minimum baselines for gender representation in citations. We also show that women represent a larger share of organization members than the authors in sponsoring organizations’ journals.

Download Full-text

How Many Citations to Women is “Enough”? Estimates of Gender Representation in Political Science

10.31235/osf.io/z5n2y ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Michelle L. Dion ◽

Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Research Field ◽

Gender Representation ◽

Science Journal ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Editorial Boards ◽

Journal Editors ◽

Research Areas ◽

Implicit Biases ◽

Political Science Journals

Recent studies have identified gendered citation gaps in political science journal articles, with male scholars being less likely to cite work by female scholars in comparison to their female peers. While journal editors, editorial boards, and political scientists are becoming more aware of implicit biases and adopting strategies to remedy them, we know less about the proper baselines for citations in subfields and research areas of political science. Without information about how many women should be cited in a research field, it is difficult to know whether the distribution is biased. Using the gender distribution of membership in professional political science organizations and of article authors in 38 political science journals, we provide scholars with baselines for gender representation in citations. We also show that women represent a larger share of organization members than the authors in sponsoring organizations’ journals.

Download Full-text

Can We Do Better? Replication and Online Appendices in Political Science

Perspectives on Politics ◽

10.1017/s1537592720001206 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-6

Author(s):

Jonathan Grossman ◽

Ami Pedahzur

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Data Access ◽

Online Platform ◽

Online Appendix ◽

Research Transparency ◽

Political Science Journals

Replicability in political science is on the rise, as disciplinary journals have been placing a growing emphasis on data access and research transparency (DA–RT) practices and policies. As a result, nearly every article that is published today in leading political science journals offers an online appendix that includes data, code, and methodological explanations necessary for replication. While these developments are laudable, many appendices still do not enable satisfactory replication because they are inaccessible, compartmentalized, and difficult to understand. In this article and in its accompanying online appendix, we demonstrate this problem and make the case for more accessible and comprehensive appendices whose contribution can fulfill and go beyond mere replicability. We propose several ways in which authors and journals can produce better appendices, namely, by making appendices more intuitive, integrated, and standardized, and by choosing an adequate online platform on which to create and host the appendix.

Download Full-text

How Are We Doing? Data Access and Replication in Political Science

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096516000184 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 49 (02) ◽

pp. 268-272 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ellen M. Key

Keyword(s):

Political Science ◽

Data Access ◽

Data Availability ◽

Data Repositories ◽

Institutional Data ◽

Technological Advances ◽

Research Transparency ◽

The Cost ◽

The Impact ◽

Mandatory Provision

ABSTRACTData access and research transparency (DA-RT) is a growing concern for the discipline. Technological advances have greatly reduced the cost of sharing data, enabling full replication archives consisting of data and code to be shared on individual websites, as well as journal archives and institutional data repositories. But how do we ensure that scholars take advantage of these resources to share their replication archives? Moreover, are the costs of research transparency borne by individuals or by journals? This article assesses the impact of journal replication policies on data availability and finds that articles published in journals with mandatory provision policies are 24 times more likely to have replication materials available than articles those with no requirements.

Download Full-text