Open Science practices in language assessment: Introducing the special issue

Al-Hoorie A. H. Cinaglia C. Hiver P. Huensch A. Isbell D. R. Leung C. Sudina E. (2024). Open science: Considerations and issues for TESOL research. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3304

Al-Hoorie A. H. Hiver P. (2024). Open science in applied linguistics: An introduction to metascience. In Plonsky L. (Ed.), Open science in applied linguistics (pp. 18–49). Applied Linguistics Press.

Burton J. D. (2024). Evaluating the impact of nonverbal behavior on language ability ratings. Language Testing, 41(4), 729–758. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tc3qg

Chapelle C. Ockey G. (2024). Open Science in language assessment research contexts: A reply to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 882–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241239377

Clark T. Bruce E. (2024). Open Science should be welcomed by test providers but grounded in pragmatic caution: A response to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 872–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532223122310

Dudley A. Marsden E. J. Bovolenta G. (2024). A context-aligned two thousand test: Towards estimating high-frequency French vocabulary knowledge for beginner-to-low intermediate proficiency adolescent learners in England. Language Testing, 41(4), 759–791. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x6bzs

Gebril A. Bali M. (2024). A Global South perspective on Open Science in language assessment: A response to Paula Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 886–891. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02655322241260121

Ha H. T. Nguyen D. T. B. Stoeckel T. (2024). What is the best predictor of word difficulty? A case of data mining using random forest. Language Testing, 41(4), 828–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241263628

Harding L. Winke P. (2021). Editorial 2021. Language Testing, 38(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220965757

Isaacs T. Winke P. M. (2024). Purposeful turns for more equitable and transparent publishing in language testing and assessment. Language Testing, 41(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231203234

Koizumi R. Maie R. Yanagisawa A. In’nami Y. (2024). Considerations to promote and accelerate Open Science: A response to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 892–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241239379

LaFlair G. T. (2024). An industry perspective on open science: A response to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 865–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241261716

Liu M. (2023). Whose open science are we talking about? From open science in psychology to open science in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56, 443–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000307

Liu M. Al-Hoorie A. H. Hiver P. V. (2024). Open access in language testing and assessment: The case of two flagship journals. Language Testing, 41(4), 703–728. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/vbjd6

Liu M. Chong S. W. Marsden E. McManus K. Morgan-Short K. Al-Hoorie A. H. Plonsky L. Bolibaugh C. Hiver P. Winke P. Huensch A. Hui B. (2023). Open scholarship in applied linguistics: What, why, and how. Language Teaching, 56(3), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000349

Marsden E. (2019). Methodological transparency and its consequences for the quality and scope of research. In McKinley J. Rose H. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (1st ed., pp. 15–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367824471-2

Marsden E. Alferink I. Andringa S. Bolibaugh C. Collins L. Jackson C. Kasprowicz R. O’Reilly D. Plonsky L. (2018). Open Accessible Summaries in Language Studies (OASIS) [Database]. https://www.oasis-database.org

Marsden E. Mackey A. (2014). IRIS: A new resource for second language research. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.1.05mar

Nishizawa H. (2024). Authenticity of academic lecture passages in high-stakes tests: A temporal fluency perspective. Language Testing, 41(4), 792–816. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02655322241262453

Pan J. Marsden E. (2024). Developing internet-based Tests of Aptitude for Language Learning (TALL): An open research endeavour. Language Testing, 41(4), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322241241849

Papageorgiou S. (2024). Can language test providers do more to support open science? A response to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 860–864. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02655322241232361

Plonsky L. (2014). Study Quality in Quantitative L2 Research (1990-2010): A Methodological Synthesis and Call for Reform: Study Quality in Quantitative L2 Research (1990-2010). The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12058.x

Purpura J. E. Brown J. D. Schoonen R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied linguistics research. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 37–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12112

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

Winke P. (2024). Sharing, collaborating, and building trust: How Open Science advances language testing. Language Testing, 41(4), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231211159

Jin Y. Fan J. (2024). Open Science for language assessment research and practice in China: A response to Winke. Language Testing, 41(4), 877–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231223100