The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Intellectual property protection for scholarly publishing in the Italian framework: a globally open approach for medical and life sciences authors

This paper aims at analyzing the importance of protection of intellectual property (IP) in biomedical scholarly publications, both for the author’s reputation and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The laws that regulate IP are very complex and differ from country to country. We shall focus on the Italian framework though many considerations could be applied to foreign contexts. IP is very articulated, yet often ignored, that is worth paying attention to a correct copyright management can help researchers promote their Work and the community to benefit from it. In the scholarly publishing field, there are two main areas: traditional publishers and open-access publishers. The first group requires a fee to access the content they publish and usually ask the authors for a complete transfer of copyright. The possibility to negotiate terms with such publishers is often overlooked: scholarly authors tend to think they do not have leverage in the publishing cycle. The so-called addendum and professional figures, like librarians and attorneys, can help manage the authors’ intellectual property. On the other hand, open-access publishers give free access to published material, guaranteeing the protection of IP: thanks to the Creative Commons Licenses, the authors do not have to surrender their copyright to the publisher and can manage and control the use made out of their Work. Applying the principles put forth in this article implies enhancing research dissemination by increasing its impact and visibility. However, to achieve such a goal, it is necessary to protect intellectual property for the sake of authors, users, and scientific progress.

Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

Activities promoting research reproducibility and transparency are crucial for generating trustworthy evidence. Evaluation of smoking interventions is one area where vested interests may motivate reduced reproducibility and transparency.

AIMS

Assess markers of transparency and reproducibility in smoking behaviour change intervention evaluation reports.

METHODS

One hundred evaluation reports of smoking behaviour change intervention randomised controlled trials published in 2018-2019 were identified. Reproducibility markers of pre-registration; protocol sharing; data, material, and analysis script sharing; replication of a previous study; and open access publication were coded in identified reports. Transparency markers of funding and conflict of interest declarations were also coded. Coding was performed by two researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff's alpha.

RESULTS

Seventy-one percent of reports were open access, and 73% were pre-registered. However, there are only 13% provided accessible materials, 7% accessible data, and 1% accessible analysis scripts. No reports were replication studies. Ninety-four percent of reports provided a funding source statement, and eighty-eight percent of reports provided a conflict of interest statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Open data, materials, analysis, and replications are rare in smoking behaviour change interventions, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future smoking research should be more reproducible to enable knowledge accumulation. This study was pre-registered: https://osf.io/yqj5p.