Interviewer: There we go. So yeah, thank you again for agreeing to this interview. And you have already signed and returned the form of consent. But as a reminder, this interview is being recorded. And it will be transcribed by myself and my student research assistants with the help of a local large language model. Is that okay with you?

Interviewee 11: Yes.

Interviewer: Brilliant, and yeah, this is about open science practices in linguistics. And of course, linguistics is a very broad field. So my first question would be, where do you situate yourself in this broad field of linguistics?

Interviewee 11: I would describe myself as a neuro- and psycholinguist. So in my PhD, I did PROJECT, but I also have experience with eye-tracking and what else and other questionnaires, but in general, like psycholinguist or neurolinguist.

Interviewer: Yes. Wonderful. And we'll start with your personal beliefs or associations. So what do you personally associate with open science? So what springs to mind when you hear open science practices?

Interviewee 11: Sorry, I had a flu last week, so maybe I will cough a couple of times. Okay, yeah, so when I think of open science, I actually think of sharing your raw data, let's say, and also maybe the scripts in let's say R, for example, with the community on OSF. So this is, I think, the first main thing that pops into my head, but also pre-registering your hypotheses and then also sharing this. Yeah, so I think this would be my biggest yeah department of what I think open science is about sharing your data.

Interviewer: Yeah great.

Interviewee 11: And your, and how you did your analyses, right? So this is also important.

Interviewer: Yeah, we've been talking about open science, right? But traditionally, linguistics is considered a humanity. And some people in the humanities prefer to speak of open research than open science. And others prefer the term open scholarship, which is often thought as an umbrella term to include open research slash science and education as well. And I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on these various terms. I'm going to put them in a chat so you can see them. Which do you think are most suitable for linguistics?

Interviewee 11: It's interesting that you point out that, I mean, obviously I know that linguistics is actually a humanities, but also I'm German native, so this differentiation actually is doesn't come so natural to me. To me, everything is Wissenschaft. And so the German term would rather be Geisteswissenschaft for humanities, right? So to me, open science feels perfectly fitting. But this may be due to my not natural differentiation between humanities and science. But it may also be because I feel like the term open science is very often used and it might be the term that I'm used to. Yeah. So I would actually prefer, I mean, open research would be maybe more general. This sounds good to me too. Yeah. But if I have to pick, it would be either one of those.

Interviewer: Yeah. I will continue to use the term open science, but I understand it as a very broad term. And so I'm quite happy to fit in even open education into that. And feel free to use whichever term you prefer in the rest of the interview. And I'd now like to turn to your experiences of open science. So do you take part in any open science practices yourself or have you in the past? And if so, which ones?

Interviewee 11: Yes, so in our project PROJECT, we usually pre-register all of our experiments. And now I forgot the platform that we use, which is embarrassing. It's like a questionnaire where you define your hypotheses and the, and the analysis you want to do later. And, and this is what I personally did in the past, but because, project PROJECT, we kind of, PERSON was always keen on us doing that. And then I have an OSF, how do you say it? Account? Yeah. And there we also upload, yeah, for every paper that we published or that I was part of that I co-published, we had a folder there with all the raw data but also the scripts and then this pre-registration form. So this is the experience that I have so far in my PhD. I also did a corpus analysis. So I created and annotated a corpus based on PROJECT. And this we also tried to share, but it was not so easy due to copyright restrictions. We used rather modern PROJECT so excerpts of the PROJECT. So I got in touch with the publishing company and they basically allowed us to share the whole annotated text upon request but like publicly, with no request, we are only allowed to share the referential expressions that we annotated. So you can't really know the actual text. Do I make sense?

Interviewer: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Interviewee 11: Yeah, so this is my experience with open science. We were able to share the corpus. It was very important to us to actually share it. The corpus but the whole text with the annotation on top we can only share upon request.

Interviewer: Yeah but you made the effort to go and ask the publisher if it's possible, it's really really interesting. And what were what have your experiences been of pre-registration? How have you found it? How have you found the process?

Interviewee 11: Um, difficult actually? Because me being a very, you know, when I think back of my first experiences with pre-registration it was kind of odd because I felt like, whoa, how, why? How should I know now which analysis I want to perform later? But, you know, it was my experiences were with my master thesis or the bachelor thesis. So it was a little bit different. So it was not so easy to think that far ahead. And then later on, later on, when you had the data, it was actually cool because you had already made all these thoughts and you could, I don't know, run the analysis. But then also often our data looked different than we actually expected. And then it's difficult, like, okay, what do we do now? Am I allowed to do extra analysis? How do I put it, you know, in the paper? Is it now I don't know, less quality because I didn't expect of these, of how the data turned out. Yes, it's I don't know if I, yeah, it sometimes was weird to me when it turned out different than it was written down, you know. But, yeah, I'm not sure if it's if it's then less quality or how to really handle it in the paper. Because in my dissertation, for example, I didn't do a pre-registration for my dissertation, but I had a fixed idea of what I wanted to investigate because it was basically in the research proposal of PROJECT. So it was all written down, right? So and then I did the corpus analysis and it didn't look any way close to what we expected. You know, if I would have done a preregistration, then it would be OK. I can't do anything I planned. So I have to totally think in a different direction. So this is why I'm like, how to handle these when it looks like this, you know, these situations.

Interviewer: I mean, how much support did you get? Like, it sounds like you started pre-registration very early on when you were still doing your studies. And yeah, how much support did you get? You know, were your drafts corrected? Did you get feedback? Yeah.

Interviewee 11: Yeah, so in PROJECT, when I started, there was also PERSON working in the project and PERSON. We always had these regular meetings where we always talked about this. So I wasn't left alone with my early starts of re-registration. But yeah, so it was always, we always discussed it also, what to put in the pre-registration. Yeah.

Interviewer: Yeah, that's really interesting. And have you practiced open sciences with a different research group? And if so, what have been your experiences there?

Interviewee 11: No, not really. PERSON and I published in a proceedings paper the corpora and our annotation scheme. This may be a different research group and then we also didn't pre-register anything because it was more like describing our corpora but with OSF and sharing the corpus it's very similar. So I wouldn't say I have different experiences with different groups.

Interviewer: Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah, I think my next question you've kind of already answered, which is where did you learn about these practices? It sounds like from the research group itself, but did you have any other inputs?

Interviewee 11: I mean, just, my research group as the, you know, guiding, this is how we do it, but then also talking to my peers, of course, how are they doing it? And understanding as a, you know, very early career student, the importance of open science and science and OSF and sharing and having a nice account there. So I think the peers also influenced how I feel about open science and maybe also going to conferences. You know, it's everywhere. And I feel like many people in the community think it's important and talk about it or stress that they share their results, yeah.

Interviewer: Which brings me to the next question, which is about the broader community. So now moving away from your personal experiences, but of course, motivated by what you've experienced, as far as you can tell, how widespread are open science practices in linguistics and specifically in your subdisciplines in neuro and psycholinguistics?

Interviewee 11: My feeling is that it's quite widespread because what you see at conferences is that often people have a QR code on their poster with a link to the OSF, stuff like this. But also, to be honest, I never really made use of it. You know, I never really double checked and went to their OSF and was like, okay, let's, I don't know, rerun their analysis, you know. But yeah, my feeling is that it's actually very common to put your data online. Yeah. And also maybe it's not true that I never made use of it because stuff like additional questionnaires, we often do author recognition tasks where there are also many studies that have, I don't know, published their specific author recognition tasks. And there you find actually all the analysis and the questionnaire online. So I definitely made use of these additional tasks for us to use in our studies.

Interviewer: And what about pre-registration? Is that also widespread in your subdisciplines?

Interviewee 11: That I would say is not as widely spread as putting your data online. Often in or here and there in talks, I remember that people also mentioned, hey, the study was also pre-registered. Like it felt like a they pointed it out like it's like a very good thing, you know? Um but I wouldn't say it's super common. It felt to me like the people who do it really point it out and emphasize it, but definitely not every group is doing that.

Interviewer: And do you think there are any specificities of linguistics or your subdisciplines of linguistics that ought to be taken into consideration when implementing open science practices? Or can we sort of you know take open science practices as they are and just apply them.

Interviewee 11: Good question. I don't know. It it depends I think on, it's a very general, broad question. I don't really know. I'm thinking into this direction again of whether the results turn out the way you thought they would, because maybe language is so open and creative and you can't really always know what to expect. Or also the participants differ so much. So you have to take, maybe you don't know what you actually have to take into account. So this was, yeah, again, thinking of pre-registration. Maybe to, I don't know, maybe you have to be a little bit more open to the data than in other fields. I don't know, because there's so much variability. Yes that's my first thought to answer your question but I don't really know you know if you think like open science practices in general for any other field sharing your data and your analysis I think would be very similar. Other fields as well.

Interviewer: Yeah. And my next question would be, what would you need to do more or to practice more open science or, in fact, open education, open research more broadly? What would help you?

Interviewee 11: I mean, this is also, I'm thinking like, what is the most you can do? You know? I maybe don't know what else I could do. I feel like it's nice that I share what I can share, but maybe it would be cool to actually maybe try to encourage people to actually use my data or something like this, but I I don't know. Maybe I, it's my lack of what, what is there to do? Or what are all the, yeah, I don't know, things? What is the maximum of open science you can go? You know, I don't know, yeah sorry.

Interviewer: That was perfectly, I mean you already do a lot. That's, that's the thing yeah and sometimes I don't know, if you agree, this is a personal um opinion or observation that I’ve made I have the feeling that often open science advocates in linguistics are preaching to the choir and so it feels to me that there are many linguists who haven't are not aware. It's not that they're necessarily not convinced, but not really aware of these practices. And I have the feeling that sometimes we're not reaching out to them. Is that a feeling you share for a start? And if so, what could we do to reach out to more linguists?

Interviewee 11: Yeah. I actually, I would say I share that feeling, yeah. Because also with maybe your colloquium [ReproducibiliTea in the HumaniTeas] that you're offering, I feel like people that go there are actually interested in the topic and want to push it. And the people that are not interested, they don't really engage with the topic, right? So I would actually agree and yeah, maybe it would be also a start to stress it in actually when you're a student in a seminar, for example, when you learn about maybe empirical ways of doing research, then also mention open science because in my studies we never talked about open, but it's like I don't know, it's, I finished my master's like four years ago which is not too long ago, but we never really talked about open science. And it was something I learned when I started my PhD and also about this reproducibility crisis and stuff. Maybe they do it now, I don't know. But this would be maybe a nice way to start with the very, very early researchers or maybe not researchers but the people that become researchers potentially so that you really are sensitive to this topic early on. And I, yeah, but I mean, we don't want to brainwash them too, but, you know, like make this part of the curriculum would be nice maybe. Because I also feel like the very, you know, the senior professors that have their way how they do things I don't really know if you get them to change how they do things. This is why I was thinking let's start with the young people.

Interviewer: Yeah, it's interesting because in previous interviews, you know, some people are what I interpret like you've kind of bottom-up. Let's start with the young people and others are much more top-down. And so say things like the journals should require sharing of materials or something like that. Yeah. Are you, is that the general consensus? You'd say more bottom-up rather than top-down or what do you think?

Interviewee 11: My feeling is it might be just easier with less frustration and discussion. Yeah. But it's also worth to go into the discussion. I'm not like, yeah, I think there are also, it maybe should be both ways, right? Bottom-up and top-down. So I like the idea of journals requiring it or at least, you know, maybe if you don't want to share it, then you have to really explain your reasons not to do it. And then, really make whatever, let's say old, stubborn, professors, really think about why they don't want to do it, you know, really reflect on the reasons. So, yeah, I also liked the idea. Yeah. I didn't really come up with it, but, maybe the top-down approach would be more frustrating, I can imagine. I don't know.

Interviewer: What have your experiences been with journals? For instance, when you've submitted pre-registered studies, what's the reaction been from the reviewers or the editors?

Interviewee 11: Um, I don't, I never had negative reactions, no, but it's it was let's say in this respect quite neutral. It was never really commented on like positive or negative.

Interviewer: Yeah okay

Interviewee 11: But I also, it's not really my personal experience, but I kind of witnessed it. PERSON has experienced the process of a pre-registered report. And that's seemed quite annoying. So but it's, it was just what I observed and heard her tell us. You know but I never really personally did that but with our little pre-registered sheets of, sheet of paper we never really had, yes, any comments on it either put it positive or negative.

Interviewer: And as a reviewer, have you seen open data, open code? And if so, have you reviewed it as part of the paper?

Interviewee 11: That's interesting. So I have not reviewed it as part of the paper. I am realizing now maybe I should have done that, but I am, I think I don't have a lot of experience. I reviewed two papers so far and one of them if I remember correctly they did not have anything like OSF links and the other one I think had but I didn't, I didn't rerun their analysis or things like this.

Interviewer: Yeah, I think that's all of my questions. It's been very interesting. But is there anything else that you wanted to add on open science practices in linguistics or in the humanities more broadly? I

Interviewee 11: I don't know. I think to me it's very interesting this, this, you know, balance between pre-registering and really exploring your data. That's very interesting to me and I don't really believe that this strict pre-registering way is maybe the ultimate right way. I think it should be a balance maybe and at least there should, I believe there should be maybe the opportunity to also explore in directions that you haven't thought of before using the data and but I also don't really know which is. You know, the how should you do it? But this is just the feeling that I don't want to also lose this part. Um but, yeah, it's just something I didn't mention before, you know.

Interviewer: Great point, thank you very much. I'll stop the recording now.
