As an interdisciplinary research team spanning linguistics, engineering, speech–language pathology, and education focusing on communication disorders, we found Marsden and Morgan-Short's state-of-the-art article extremely relevant. We endorse the importance of open science to language research and appreciate its potential for advancing equity. Yet we argue that the current debate on open science is incomplete—lacking sufficient community and stakeholder involvement, particularly for individuals who have language disorders and who are racially and ethnically minoritized.

Marsden and Morgan-Short have claimed that open science methods will support inclusivity and diversity of researchers, participants, and research questions. We agree but argue that the open science debate as it is neglects a population deeply impacted by open science practices: individuals with language disorders, and specifically, communication disorders. For example, nearly one third of autistic individuals over the age of five years are minimally speaking, with no spoken language or a small number of single words and fixed phrases (Tager-Flusberg & Kasari, 2013). Yet research with these individuals has declined over the past few decades (Stedman et al., 2019), exacerbating the knowledge gap about language acquisition in this population and in the full population. Open science in language research must center inclusivity to share resources and expand access to marginalized individuals with communication disorders (e.g., autistic individuals who are minimally verbal or have language impairment), with the broader aim of advancing the advocacy base for their needs and ensuring that our understanding of language development is broadly representative.

Marsden and Morgan-Short have also suggested that data sharing may not be possible or ethical for research with vulnerable participants such as those with language disorders and/or co-occurring intellectual disability. However, we argue that, while the inclusion of these populations in open science requires careful consideration, it should not be interpreted as a reason for exclusion. Rather, mindful study design—purposefully designed with the possibility of data sharing and open research—and dynamic informed consent can help overcome these challenges. For example, during consent, researchers should be transparent in explaining the implications of open science, including the specifics of the current research project, and also provide participants with the choice to opt-in to the sharing of their data as well as opportunities to ask questions, learn about and demonstrate understanding of their rights and terms pertaining to open science, and access materials in formats responsive to their needs (e.g., visual supports). These suggestions align with best practices from self-advocates with intellectual disability and community stakeholders (Bigby et al., 2014; Nicholson et al., 2013). With such a process in place, in our experience, many families are enthusiastic about being involved in science and may be willing to share their data because they have witnessed the value of alerting other researchers to their unique experiences and needs. In addition, encrypted databases that require training in the responsible conduct of research for access to them provide researchers with a method of ethically sharing identifiable data, such as audio and video, while maintaining privacy.

More broadly, the study of language disorders and language in different neurotypes is fundamental to capturing the richness of language learning and use. These studies inform what types of language supports may be beneficial to these individuals and can motivate new techniques to support language learning such as augmentative technology and communication devices. Open research increases access to underserved populations and facilitates cross-disciplinary innovation. As such, it is critical that these populations be included in the future of open language research.

Marsden and Morgan-Short argued that open science is the pathway to equity. We argue that open science practices do not lead to equity for racially and ethnically minoritized communities without proactive planning, citing examples from linguistics and autism research. Rickford (1997) noted language research has a long, sinister history of taking from African American English speaking communities to advance science and theory. These unequal partnerships have extended to other minoritized communities (e.g., Indigenous). Per Rickford (1997), predominantly white researchers failed to prioritize training individuals from the communities that they studied to become language researchers themselves; this ethical failure hindered science and policy development for meeting community needs in the workplace, school, and court system. Nearly 30 years later, Charity Hudley et al. (2020) discussed many of these same issues, underlining how inadequate community involvement in language research has generated linguistic ideologies, research methods, and educational models that do not reflect or serve the needs of racially and ethnically minoritized communities as part of the full population. It is the responsibility of researchers to mitigate these harms, with an emphasis on creating ethical research–community partnerships (Charity Hudley et al., 2020).

In addition to race and ethnicity, language research must also center race and dis/ability in open science. Like race, dis/ability is a social construct and a natural part of the human experience for which language research must account in developing scientific theories and findings. Language in autism research has systematically excluded autistic racially and ethnically minoritized persons from the evidence base informing diagnostic criteria, assessments, and practices (Girolamo et al., in press). Further, examination of dimensions along which disparities exist in autism research has been rare (Anderson et al., 2018). Altogether, community involvement in open science must include intersectional identities.

Overall, we concur that open science is beneficial for language research, but we call for critical implementation of open science. Conducting language research is a dynamic act, and researchers must consider whose voices are absent from scientific movements like open science. Is equity via open science possible in a research ecosystem where scientists, and not communities, are at the core? Do open science practices in language research reflect interdisciplinary influences and the perspectives of participant communities? An absence of discussion of these issues in Marsden and Morgan-Short indicates that these complexities have yet to be integrated into mainstream language research. Researchers must treat community involvement in open science as mandatory. Finally, we end by reiterating our agreement with the value of open science in language research. We appreciate the opportunity to consider these complex issues that the authors have raised with our colleagues.

作为一个跨越语言学、工程学、语言病理学和专注于交流障碍的教育的跨学科研究团队，我们发现马斯登和摩根-肖特的最新文章极为相关。我们认可开放科学对语言研究的重要性，并赞赏其促进公平的潜力。然而，我们认为目前关于开放科学的辩论是不完整的——缺乏足够的社区和利益相关者参与，特别是对于有语言障碍和种族和民族少数的个人。

Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 声称，开放科学方法将支持研究人员、参与者和研究问题的包容性和多样性。我们同意但争辩说，开放科学辩论本身就忽略了深受开放科学实践影响的人群：有语言障碍的人，特别是有沟通障碍的人。例如，将近三分之一的五岁以上自闭症患者只会说最少的语言，没有口头语言或少量的单个单词和固定短语（Tager-Flusberg & Kasari，2013 年）。然而，在过去几十年中，对这些人的研究有所下降（Stedman 等人，2019)，加剧了该人群和全体人群关于语言习得的知识差距。语言研究中的开放科学必须以包容性为中心，以共享资源并扩大对有沟通障碍的边缘化个体（例如，语言能力最低或有语言障碍的自闭症个体）的访问，更广泛的目标是推进满足他们需求的宣传基础，并确保我们对语言发展的理解具有广泛的代表性。

Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 还建议，对于弱势参与者（例如患有语言障碍和/或并发智力障碍的参与者）的研究，数据共享可能是不可能的或不合乎道德的。然而，我们认为，虽然将这些人群纳入开放科学需要仔细考虑，但不应将其解释为排除的理由。相反，精心设计的研究设计——有目的地设计为具有数据共享和开放研究的可能性——以及动态知情同意可以帮助克服这些挑战。例如，在同意期间，研究人员应透明地解释开放科学的影响，包括当前研究项目的具体情况，并为参与者提供选择加入共享数据的机会以及询问的机会问题，了解并展示他们对与开放科学相关的权利和条款的理解，并以响应他们需求的格式访问材料（例如，视觉支持）。这些建议与智障自我倡导者和社区利益相关者的最佳实践相一致（Bigby 等人，2014 年；尼科尔森等人，2013 年）。有了这样一个过程，根据我们的经验，许多家庭都热衷于参与科学，并且可能愿意分享他们的数据，因为他们已经见证了提醒其他研究人员注意他们独特的经历和需求的价值。此外，加密数据库需要在负责任的研究行为方面接受培训才能访问它们，这为研究人员提供了一种在维护隐私的同时合乎道德地共享可识别数据（例如音频和视频）的方法。

更广泛地说，研究语言障碍和不同神经类型的语言对于捕捉语言学习和使用的丰富性至关重要。这些研究表明哪些类型的语言支持可能对这些人有益，并且可以激发新技术来支持语言学习，例如增强技术和通信设备。开放研究增加了接触服务不足人群的机会，并促进了跨学科创新。因此，将这些人群纳入开放语言研究的未来至关重要。

Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 认为开放科学是通向公平的途径。我们认为，如果没有积极的计划，开放科学实践不会导致种族和少数族裔社区的公平，并引用语言学和自闭症研究的例子。Rickford（1997 年）指出，语言研究有着悠久而险恶的历史，它从说英语的非裔美国人社区中汲取灵感，以推动科学和理论的发展。这些不平等的伙伴关系已经扩展到其他少数群体（例如，土著）。每里克福德 ( 1997)，主要是白人研究人员未能优先培训来自他们研究的社区的个人成为语言研究人员；这种道德失败阻碍了满足工作场所、学校和法院系统社区需求的科学和政策发展。将近 30 年后，Charity Hudley 等人。( 2020 ) 讨论了许多相同的问题，强调了社区对语言研究的不充分参与如何产生了语言意识形态、研究方法和教育模式，这些意识形态、研究方法和教育模式不能反映或服务于作为全体人口一部分的种族和少数族裔社区的需求。减轻这些危害是研究人员的责任，重点是建立合乎道德的研究-社区伙伴关系（Charity Hudley 等人，2020 年）。

除了种族和民族，语言研究还必须以开放科学中的种族和残疾/能力为中心。与种族一样，dis/ability 是一种社会建构，是人类经验的自然组成部分，语言研究在发展科学理论和发现时必须考虑到这一点。自闭症研究中的语言系统地将自闭症种族和少数民族排除在诊断标准、评估和实践的证据基础之外（Girolamo 等人，出版中）。此外，很少检查自闭症研究中存在差异的维度（Anderson 等人，2018 年）。总而言之，社区参与开放科学必须包括交叉身份。

总的来说，我们同意开放科学有利于语言研究，但我们呼吁批判性地实施开放科学。进行语言研究是一种动态行为，研究人员必须考虑在开放科学等科学运动中缺少谁的声音。在以科学家而非社区为核心的研究生态系统中，通过开放科学实现公平是否可能？语言研究中的开放科学实践是否反映了跨学科的影响和参与者社区的观点？Marsden 和 Morgan-Short 没有对这些问题进行讨论，这表明这些复杂性尚未纳入主流语言研究。研究人员必须将社区参与开放科学视为强制性的。最后，最后，我们重申同意开放科学在语言研究中的价值。我们很高兴有机会考虑作者向我们的同事提出的这些复杂问题。