1
|
Norris E, O’Mahony A, Coyne R, Varol T, Green JA, Reynolds J, Toomey E. Demystifying Open Science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: a practical guide to Registered Reports and Data Notes. Health Psychol Behav Med 2024; 12:2351939. [PMID: 38817594 PMCID: PMC11138224 DOI: 10.1080/21642850.2024.2351939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2024] [Accepted: 04/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Open Science practices are integral to increasing transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research in health psychology and behavioral medicine. Drives to facilitate Open Science practices are becoming increasingly evident in journal editorial policies, including the establishment of new paper formats such as Registered Reports and Data Notes. This paper provides: (i) an overview of the current state of Open Science policies within health psychology and behavioral medicine, (ii) a call for submissions to an Article Collection of Registered Reports and Data Notes as new paper formats within the journal of Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine, (iii) an overview of Registered Reports and Data Notes, and (iv) practical considerations for authors and reviewers of Registered Reports and Data Notes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Norris
- Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK
| | | | - Rory Coyne
- School of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Tugce Varol
- Public Engagement and Science Communication Group, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - James A. Green
- Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, Health Research Institute (HRI) and School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | | | - Elaine Toomey
- Centre for Health Research Methodology, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ng JY, Lin B, Parikh T, Cramer H, Moher D. Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0302655. [PMID: 38701100 PMCID: PMC11068175 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 04/08/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS). METHODS CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals. RESULTS A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8. CONCLUSION While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Y. Ng
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brenda Lin
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Tisha Parikh
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Holger Cramer
- Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - David Moher
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pathak K, Marwaha JS, Chen HW, Krumholz HM, Matthews JB. Use of Open Science Practices in Surgical Journals. JAMA Surg 2024; 159:228-229. [PMID: 38117492 PMCID: PMC10733844 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.5389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/21/2023]
Abstract
This cross-sectional study assesses the level of adoption of 5 new tools that promote high quality and transparency in surgical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jayson S. Marwaha
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Hao Wei Chen
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Harlan M. Krumholz
- Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Jeffrey B. Matthews
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Plante J, Langerwerf L, Klopper M, Rhon DI, Young JL. Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapist Journals. Phys Ther 2024; 104:pzad133. [PMID: 37815940 DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzad133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 06/05/2023] [Accepted: 08/21/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapist journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor (JIF). METHODS Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapist journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their JIF was determined. RESULTS Thirty-five journals' author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0 to 8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. TOP factor scores were a significant predictor of JIF scores. CONCLUSION There is low implementation of the TOP standards by physical therapist journals. TOP factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for JIF scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists. IMPACT Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Plante
- Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Leigh Langerwerf
- Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Mareli Klopper
- Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Daniel I Rhon
- Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Jodi L Young
- Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pathak K, Marwaha JS, Chen HW, Krumholz HM, Matthews JB. Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2023:2023.05.02.23289357. [PMID: 37205325 PMCID: PMC10187447 DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.02.23289357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jayson S. Marwaha
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Hao Wei Chen
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Harlan M. Krumholz
- Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Jeffrey B. Matthews
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Naaman K, Grant S, Kianersi S, Supplee L, Henschel B, Mayo-Wilson E. Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2023; 10:221093. [PMID: 36756061 PMCID: PMC9890101 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Naaman
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- School of Education, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Sean Grant
- HEDCO Institute for Evidence-Based Educational Practice, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
- Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University-Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Sina Kianersi
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Beate Henschel
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|