Open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research can have a significant positive impact on the scientific community and broader society. While more individuals and organizations within the hydrology community are embracing open science practices, technical (e.g., limited coding experience), resource (e.g., open access fees), and social (e.g., fear of weaknesses being exposed or ideas being scooped) challenges remain. Furthermore, there are a growing number of constantly evolving open science tools, resources, and initiatives that can be overwhelming. These challenges and the ever-evolving nature of the open science landscape may seem insurmountable for hydrologists interested in pursuing open science. Therefore, we propose the general “Open Hydrology Principles” to guide individual and community progress toward open science for research and education and the “Open Hydrology Practical Guide” to improve the accessibility of currently available tools and approaches. We aim to inform and empower hydrologists as they transition to open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible research. We discuss the benefits as well as common open science challenges and how hydrologists can overcome them. The Open Hydrology Principles and Open Hydrology Practical Guide reflect our knowledge of the current state of open hydrology; we recognize that recommendations and suggestions will evolve and expand with emerging open science infrastructures, workflows, and research experiences. Therefore, we encourage hydrologists all over the globe to join in and help advance open science by contributing to the living version of this document and by sharing open hydrology resources in the community-supported repository (https://open-hydrology.github.io, last access: 1 February 2022).@en

Experimental work in hydrology is in decline. Based on a community survey, Blume et al. showed that the hydrological community associates experimental work with greater risks. One of the main issues with experimental work is the higher chance of negative results (defined here as when the expected or wanted result was not observed despite careful experimental design, planning and execution), resulting in a longer and more difficult publishing process. Reporting on negative results would avoid putting time and resources into repeating experiments that lead to negative results, and give experimental hydrologists the scientific recognition they deserve. With this commentary, we propose four potential solutions to encourage reporting on negative results, which might contribute to a stimulation of experimental hydrology.@en

Media such as television, newspapers and social media play a key role in the communication between scientists and the general public. Communicating your science via the media can be positive and rewarding by providing the inherent joy of sharing your knowledge with a broader audience, promoting science as a fundamental part of culture and society, impacting decision- and policy-makers, and giving you a greater recognition by institutions, colleagues and funders. However, the interaction between scientists and journalists is not always straightforward. For instance, scientists may not always be able to translate their work into a compelling story, and journalists may sometimes misinterpret scientific output. In this paper, we present insights from hydrologists and journalists discussing the advantages and benefits as well as the potential pitfalls and aftermath of science-media interaction. As we perceive interacting with the media as a rewarding and essential part of our work, we aim to encourage scientists to participate in the diverse and evolving media landscape. With this paper, we call on the scientific community to support scientists who actively contribute to a fruitful science-media relationship..@en