Open laboratory notebooks: good for science, good for society, good for scientists

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).

RESULTS

379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).

CONCLUSIONS

Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined

Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science's core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other's work.

Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

Considerations for implementing electronic laboratory notebooks in an academic research environment

As research becomes predominantly digitalized, scientists have the option of using electronic laboratory notebooks to record and access entries. These systems can more readily meet volume, complexity, accessibility and preservation requirements than paper notebooks. Although the technology can yield many benefits, these can be realized only by choosing a system that properly fulfills the requirements of a given context. This review explores the factors that should be considered when introducing electronic laboratory notebooks to an academically focused research group. We cite pertinent studies and discuss our own experience implementing a system within a multidisciplinary research environment. We also consider how the required financial and time investment is shared between individuals and institutions. Finally, we discuss how electronic laboratory notebooks fit into the broader context of research data management. This article is not a product review; it provides a framework for both the initial consideration of an electronic laboratory notebook and the evaluation of specific software packages.

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:1229-1242. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery

Preregistration of study protocols and, in particular, Registered Reports are novel publishing formats that are currently gaining substantial traction. Besides rating the research question and soundness of methodology over outstanding significance of the results, they can help with antagonizing inadequate statistical power, selective reporting of results, undisclosed analytic flexibility, as well as publication bias. Preregistration works well when a clear hypothesis, primary outcome, and mode of analysis can be formulated. But is it also applicable and useful in discovery research, which develops theories and hypotheses, measurement techniques, and generates evidence that justifies further research? I will argue that only slight modifications are needed to harness the potential of preregistration and make exploratory research more trustworthy and useful.

Six Laws of Open Source Drug Discovery

Six to swear by! Society needs effective and affordable medicines. We currently have at our disposal essentially one system to discover and develop drugs, and there are many areas where this system struggles to deliver, for example to combat antimicrobial resistance, or tropical diseases, or dementia. It is sensible to cultivate alternative, competing approaches to drug discovery and development. A genuinely new alternative is to open up the entire research cycle, abandoning secrecy altogether. This "open source" approach has now been trialed and the lessons learned distilled to six laws of operation that help to clarify working practices. This article examines and explains those laws, which can be adopted by anyone wishing to create medicines using an inclusive, public process.