Open research can (soon) become the norm in language sciences. Major funders and journals have begun to encourage or require more open and transparent research practices, from making materials and data available to disseminating results. Marsden and Morgan-Short closed their review article by suggesting that open research practices are the future. As junior researchers (an early-career scholar and two graduate students), we, too, are sometimes referred to as the future of the field. For some of us as junior researchers, there are no nonopen research practices to abandon because we have already been encouraged to carry out research in an open and transparent manner thanks to our mentors who have wholeheartedly supported open scholarship. Thus, junior scholars going through research training during the open research movement can provide insights and drive important changes in the field. We begin this commentary by illustrating how junior scholars can benefit from open research practices as an integral part of research training. We then discuss what junior scholars can offer. We conclude by extending Marsden and Morgan-Short's call for an incentive structure that will move the field toward openness and transparency.

Junior scholars can learn about and take advantage of various open research practices, including those identified by Marsden and Morgan-Short, as part of their research training. For example, new data analysis techniques and methods are uncovered when analytical code is shared. Furthermore, preregistration obliges researchers to lay out methodological details, including the more practical aspects of data collection, processing, and analysis. Perhaps the most important advantage for junior scholars practicing open scholarship comes through their being pushed to critically examine various aspects of a study more thoroughly than they would normally do. For example, when considering a replication attempt, researchers should decide which variable changes might have the greatest theoretical implications. They must also assess the extent to which the methodology of the initial study is appropriate for new study participants and provide evaluations of the validity and reliability of the instrument(s). These opportunities extended by open research practices can allow junior researchers to sharpen their critical thinking and analytical skills that are indispensable for an academic career.

Time is the first challenge to open research that Marsden and Morgan-Short discussed. As junior researchers call for more training in open research practices (Zečević et al., 2021), we argue that strong mentorship practices, including hands-on experience provided by established researchers, are warranted. In no way are we arguing that senior researchers should exploit their junior colleagues to perform tedious tasks. On the contrary, mutually beneficial relationships between more and less experienced researchers can facilitate crucial knowledge transfer and development of ideas. In some cases, junior scholars might possess the critical open research skills (e.g., coding) that will facilitate certain laborious tasks in efficient and reproducible ways. We stress that established researchers must shoulder the responsibilities of not letting this labor be invisible (e.g., Pownall et al., 2021). Potential co-authorship, along with accurate and detailed description of junior scholars’ contributions (e.g., CRediT statement), should be discussed when they are significant enough. These discussions would also be a powerful motivator for junior researchers’ participation in the research (Kathawalla et al., 2021).

In addition, junior researchers are valuable assets in the open scholarship movement. Many not only support open research but feel enthusiastic about it (e.g., Pownall et al., 2021). This is critically important because mentorship is a two-way street. Although many discussions have focused on how advisors shape the research practices of their students, we argue that students and early-career researchers can also influence their advisors and mentors. For example, advisors are often listed as secondary authors in a student's publication. When that is the case, the student may take the lead in practicing open scholarship by, for example, sharing their materials, data, and analysis code or by choosing to publish the research in a journal that supports such practices. In fact, such a process can create significant learning opportunities for both senior and junior researchers.

Notwithstanding the positive role that junior scholars can play, we need support. We need an incentive structure that provides a safe space for us to practice open scholarship. However, junior scholars are not in a position to create such an incentive structure ourselves, at least not directly. Faculty research positions provide an example. The ability to carry out original research is often listed as a desired qualification for a position. In the United States, for instance, graduate students may have only one or two publications when entering the job market. If their publications include replication studies, these students’ support for open research practices might put them at a disadvantage because replications might not be considered as original research. For promotion, too, open scholarship is seldom included as a criterion. This is where junior scholars need support from professional bodies such as the American Association for Applied Linguistics, the British Association for Applied Linguistics, the European Second Language Association, and others. If leaders in the field provide clearer promotion guidelines for open scholarship, junior scholars would be in a better position to practice open research without reluctance. With such efforts, professional bodies could establish systematic guidelines that, for example, specify what research is worth replicating that is independent of the research outcome (Romero, 2018). Changing the incentive structure should also be supported by research funders. As securing funding is sometimes considered a promotion criterion, allocating funding to open science projects can further encourage junior scholars to engage in open research. Finally, faculty members will more likely use open scholarship in their research when academic publishing requires it.

We began this commentary by suggesting that open scholarship can soon become the norm. We believe that many of our peers share our excitement about and support for open practices. As junior scholars, we have undoubtedly benefited from the work of other researchers practicing open scholarship, and we hope to continue this move toward openness and transparency. However, there are issues that junior researchers are also not in a position to address. Therefore, we call for an incentive structure that can protect and expand open scholarship, including for early-career scholars and graduate students.

Open research can (soon) become the norm in language sciences. Major funders and journals have begun to encourage or require more open and transparent research practices, from making materials and data available to disseminating results. Marsden and Morgan-Short closed their review article by suggesting that open research practices are the future. As junior researchers (an early-career scholar and two graduate students), we, too, are sometimes referred to as the future of the field. For some of us as junior researchers, there are no nonopen research practices to abandon because we have already been encouraged to carry out research in an open and transparent manner thanks to our mentors who have wholeheartedly supported open scholarship. Thus, junior scholars going through research training during the open research movement can provide insights and drive important changes in the field. We begin this commentary by illustrating how junior scholars can benefit from open research practices as an integral part of research training. We then discuss what junior scholars can offer. We conclude by extending Marsden and Morgan-Short's call for an incentive structure that will move the field toward openness and transparency.

作为研究培训的一部分，初级学者可以了解并利用各种开放式研究实践，包括由马斯登和摩根-肖特确定的那些实践。例如，共享分析代码时会发现新的数据分析技术和方法。此外，预注册要求研究人员列出方法细节，包括数据收集、处理和分析的更实际方面。对于从事开放式学术研究的初级学者来说，最重要的优势可能在于他们被迫比平时更彻底地批判性地检查研究的各个方面。例如，在考虑复制尝试时，研究人员应确定哪些变量变化可能具有最大的理论意义。他们还必须评估初始研究的方法在多大程度上适合新的研究参与者，并提供对工具的有效性和可靠性的评估。这些通过开放研究实践扩展的机会可以让初级研究人员提高他们的批判性思维和分析技能，这对于学术生涯来说是不可或缺的。

时间是 Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 讨论的开放研究的第一个挑战。由于初级研究人员呼吁在开放研究实践中进行更多培训（Zečević 等人，2021 年）)，我们认为强有力的指导实践，包括知名研究人员提供的实践经验，是必要的。我们绝不是在争论高级研究人员应该利用他们的初级同事来执行繁琐的任务。相反，经验丰富和经验不足的研究人员之间的互利关系可以促进关键知识的转移和思想的发展。在某些情况下，初级学者可能拥有关键的开放式研究技能（例如，编码），这些技能将以高效和可重复的方式促进某些艰巨的任务。我们强调，成熟的研究人员必须承担起不让这种劳动被忽视的责任（例如，Pownall 等人，2021). 潜在的共同作者，以及对初级学者贡献的准确和详细的描述（例如，CRediT 声明），应该在它们足够重要时进行讨论。这些讨论也将成为初级研究人员参与研究的强大动力（Kathawalla 等人，2021 年）。

此外，初级研究人员是开放奖学金运动中的宝贵资产。许多人不仅支持开放研究，而且对此充满热情（例如，Pownall 等人，2021). 这一点非常重要，因为指导是一条两条路。尽管许多讨论都集中在导师如何塑造学生的研究实践上，但我们认为学生和早期职业研究人员也可以影响他们的导师和导师。例如，导师通常在学生的出版物中被列为第二作者。在这种情况下，学生可以带头实践开放奖学金，例如，共享他们的材料、数据和分析代码，或者选择在支持此类实践的期刊上发表研究。事实上，这样的过程可以为高级和初级研究人员创造重要的学习机会。

尽管年轻学者可以发挥积极作用，但我们需要支持。我们需要一个激励结构，为我们实践开放式学术提供一个安全的空间。然而，初级学者无法自己创建这样的激励结构，至少不能直接创建。教师研究岗位就是一个例子。进行原创性研究的能力通常被列为职位所需的资格。例如，在美国，研究生在进入就业市场时可能只有一两篇论文。如果他们的出版物包括复制研究，这些学生对开放研究实践的支持可能会使他们处于不利地位，因为复制可能不会被视为原创研究。对于晋升，公开奖学金也很少作为标准。这就是初级学者需要美国应用语言学协会、英国应用语言学协会、欧洲第二语言协会等专业机构支持的地方。如果该领域的领导者为开放学术提供更明确的推广指南，年轻学者将能够更好地开展开放研究而不勉强。通过这样的努力，专业机构可以建立系统的指导方针，例如，指定哪些研究值得复制，独立于研究结果（Romero，如果该领域的领导者为开放学术提供更明确的推广指南，年轻学者将能够更好地开展开放研究而不勉强。通过这样的努力，专业机构可以建立系统的指导方针，例如，指定哪些研究值得复制，独立于研究结果（Romero，如果该领域的领导者为开放学术提供更明确的推广指南，年轻学者将能够更好地开展开放研究而不勉强。通过这样的努力，专业机构可以建立系统的指导方针，例如，指定哪些研究值得复制，独立于研究结果（Romero，2018 年）。改变激励结构也应该得到研究资助者的支持。由于获得资金有时被视为晋升标准，为开放科学项目分配资金可以进一步鼓励初级学者从事开放研究。最后，当学术出版需要时，教师更有可能在他们的研究中使用开放奖学金。

我们通过建议开放奖学金很快成为常态来开始这篇评论。我们相信，我们的许多同行都对开放实践感到兴奋和支持。作为初级学者，我们无疑从其他从事开放学术研究的研究人员的工作中受益，我们希望继续朝着开放和透明的方向迈进。然而，有些问题是初级研究人员也无法解决的。因此，我们呼吁建立一个可以保护和扩大开放奖学金的激励结构，包括针对早期职业学者和研究生的激励结构。