Abstracts Submission

Investigative science journalism plays an increasingly vital role in shaping the science–society relationship. Science fraud and misconduct—such as hype, plagiarism, data manipulation, conflicts of interest, and other ethical breaches—are becoming more common, due to the infiltration of vested commercial and political interests, personal motives, work pressures, and other issues that compromise the integrity of the scholarly record. The number of publication retractions has skyrocketed in recent years. Journalists, as key brokers of research knowledge, can help raise awareness of these problematic aspects of science and ensure public audiences have the information needed to make decisions and form opinions based on trustworthy evidence. But the enaction of this watchdog role among science journalists remains the exception rather than the norm, and scholarly research into it is a rarity.

This thematic issue invites scholars to consider theories, practices, and implications of watchdog science journalism—broadly understood here as journalism that investigates, exposes, and warns society of the misuses and abuses of science methods, processes, outcomes, and authority by those practicing, funding, and/or using science in the public domain (e.g., scientists, government, businesses). It welcomes contributions on the pros and cons, theoretical or practical, of investigative science journalism and how it might impact public understanding, attitudes, and actions regarding science events and issues. Potential topics include, but are not limited to, issues around the following broad questions:

• How is watchdog science journalism distinguished from the more commonly promoted practice of “critical science journalism”?
• How do journalists conceptualize their role as science watchdogs, and to what extent is this role performed?
• What motivates journalists to act, or not to act, as watchdogs of science and its stakeholders?
• What techniques and strategies do journalists employ to shed light on the dark sides of science?
• What factors facilitate or hinder science journalists’ ability to perform a watchdog role?
• How does the science establishment (e.g., scientists and their institutions, science policy makers) respond to watchdog science journalism?
• How do publics perceive, receive, and approve/disapprove of watchdog science journalism?
• How have the above conceptions, performances, or impacts of the science watchdog role evolved in history?
• How do the above compare across geographic, cultural, or institutional contexts?
• What potential conceptual frameworks can be used to study journalism as a science watchdog?

Many scholars and initiatives in communication and media research have called for a “cultural shift” in our discipline toward more open, reproducible, and replicable research practices and better access to infrastructures and shared research resources (e.g., Bowman & Spence, 2020; Dienlin et al., 2021; Haim & Puschmann, 2023). However, when we look at the main forums in our field, we still see a lack of opportunities to share information on and experiences with such infrastructures and resources. Typically, this information is limited to brief references in articles, documentation scattered across the web, and informal exchanges among colleagues. A growing, but still limited number of journals have started to provide dedicated space for in-depth presentations or discussions of tools, datasets, or other resources (e.g., Araujo et al., 2022; Haim et al., 2023; Musi et al., 2024; Ohme, 2023; Schoch & Chan, 2023; Shaw et al., 2021; Strippel et al., 2023).

This thematic issue aims to contribute to these efforts by providing a forum for debate and exchange on open research infrastructures for communication and media research, with a focus on non-commercial resources following open science principles. Hence, we particularly welcome submissions which:

• Present, compare, or evaluate datasets, databases, and archives that provide research material and instruments for data analysis or data collection in the field of communication and media research;
• Present, compare, or evaluate research software, models (e.g., classifiers), training data, dictionaries, or other resources, taking into account the specific requirements in the field of communication and media research;
• Assess the extent to which open research infrastructures and resources are created and (re)used in communication and media research, discuss the factors that enable or constrain their adoption, and provide suggestions for ways forward;
• Discuss the implications of creating, maintaining, and using reusable research data, archives, and tools for both quantitative and qualitative research practices in communication and media studies with regard to research inequalities between the Global North and the Global South or the English language hegemony (e.g., Dutta et al., 2021; Humphreys et al., 2021).

References

Araujo, T., Ausloos, J., van Atteveldt, W., Loecherbach, F., Moeller, J., Ohme, J., Trilling, D., van de Velde, B., de Vreese, C., & Welbers, K. (2022). OSD2F: An open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.001.arau

Bowman, N. D., & Spence, P. R. (2020). Challenges and best practices associated with sharing research materials and research data for communication scholars. Communication Studies, 71(4), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1799488

Dienlin, T., Johannes, N., Bowman, N. D., Masur, P. K., Engesser, S., Kümpel, A. S., Lukito, J., Bier, L. M., Zhang, R., Johnson, B. K., Huskey, R., Schneider, F. M., Breuer, J., Parry, D. A., Vermeulen, I., Fisher, J. T., Banks, J., Weber, R., Ellis, D. A., . . . de Vreese, C. (2021). An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052

Dutta, M., Ramasubramanian, S., Barrett, M., Elers, C., Sarwatay, D., Raghunath, P., Kaur, S., Dutta, D., Jayan, P., Rahman, M., Tallam, E., Roy, S., Falnikar, A., Johnson, G. M., Mandal, I., Dutta, U., Basnyat, I., Soriano, C., Pavarala, V., . . . Zapata, D. (2021). Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab027

Haim, M., Leiner, D., & Hase, V. (2023). Integrating data donations in online surveys. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 71(1/2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2023-1-2-130

Haim, M., & Puschmann, C. (2023). Opening up data, tools, and practices: Collaborating with the future. Digital Journalism, 11(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2174894

Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 855–874. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab026

Musi, E., Garcia Aguilar, E. E., & Federico, L. (2024). Botlitica: A generative AI-based tool to assist journalists in navigating political propaganda campaigns. Studies in Communication Sciences (SComS), 24(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2024.01.4270

Ohme, J. (2023). Research software reviews in mobile media & communication studies. Sage. https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/mmc/Research%20Software%20Reviews%20in%20Mobile%20Media_final-1646042282.pdf

Schoch, D., & Chan, C.-H. (2023). Software presentation: Rtoot: Collecting and analyzing Mastodon data. Mobile Media & Communication, 11(3), 575–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579231176678

Shaw, A., Scharkow, M., & Wang, Z. J. (2021). Opening a conversation on open communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab033

Strippel, C., Breuer, J., Fürst, S., Koenen, E., Prandner, D., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2023). Editorial: Data, archives, and tools—Introducing new publication formats on infrastructures and resources for communication and media research. Publizistik, 68(2/3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-023-00806-7