Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of responses to 13 questions from a 2022 national probability sample of 1,154 US adults supported the existence of five factors that we argue assess perceptions of Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS). These factors also predict support for increasing federal funding of science and, separately, supporting federal funding of basic research. Each of the factors reflects perceptions of a key facet of scientists' self-presentation, science/scientists' adherence to professed norms, or science's benefits: specifically, that scientists are Credible, Prudent, and Unbiased and that science is Self-Correcting and Beneficial. The FASS model explained 40.6% of the variance in support for increasing federal funding for science and 33.7% in support for basic research. For both dependent variables, conservatives were less likely to be supportive when they perceived that science/scientists fail to overcome biases. The interactions between political ideology and both Prudence and Beneficial, however, were significant only when predicting Basic Research support. In that case, there were no differences between conservatives and liberals when perceptions of benefit were low, but when high, liberals' perception of benefit had a stronger association with support for funding than conservatives'. Among those perceiving that scientists lack prudence, liberals were more likely to support funding basic research than conservatives, but the difference disappeared when perceptions of prudence were very high. The factors could serve as across-time indicators of the public's assessment of the state of science.

Who should be a science communicator? The struggle for 'legitimate' status as science communicators between Chinese scientists and citizens on a Chinese knowledge-sharing platform

Qualitative interviews with Chinese scientist science communicators (n = 15) and citizen science communicators (n = 15) on Zhihu suggest that there is a struggle between the two groups to be seen as legitimate science communicators online. Public users tried to show their enthusiasm as science communicators, integrate into the circle of science communicators and blur the boundary between scientists and themselves. The participating scientists tend to discount such activity and indicate that they are more legitimate science communicators, possessing the requisite scientific literacy and noble personal morality.

Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.

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.

Development of a Framework for the Culture of Scientific Research

Scientific research has a culture that can be challenging to enter. Different aspects of this culture may act as barriers or entry points for different people. Recognition of these barriers and entry points requires identifying aspects of the culture of scientific research and synthesizing them into a single, descriptive framework. A systematic literature review encompassing a two-pronged search strategy, descriptive mapping of ideas, and consensus building, was performed to identify aspects of scientific research culture. This resulted in the Culture of Scientific Research (CSR) Framework, composed of 31 cultural aspects categorized as either Practices, Norms/Expectations, or Values/Beliefs. Additional evidence of validity was collected through a survey that asked biological researchers to indicate which aspects in the framework were relevant to their experiences of research. The majority of survey respondents (n = 161) perceived the 31 aspects in the CSR Framework as relevant to biological research. This framework provides a consistent structure for describing the experiences of people engaging with the culture of scientific research. The literature review included literature from multiple disciplines, so the CSR Framework should be broadly applicable. Future applications of the CSR Framework include identifying possible barriers and entry points experienced by groups currently underrepresented in scientific research.

Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts

Research suggests that scientists based at prestigious institutions receive more credit for their work than scientists based at less prestigious institutions, as do scientists working in certain countries. We examined the extent to which country- and institution-related status signals drive such differences in scientific recognition. In a preregistered survey experiment, we asked 4,147 scientists from six disciplines (astronomy, cardiology, materials science, political science, psychology and public health) to rate abstracts that varied on two factors: (i) author country (high status vs lower status in science); (ii) author institution (high status vs lower status university). We found only weak evidence of country- or institution-related status bias, and mixed regression models with discipline as random-effect parameter indicated that any plausible bias not detected by our study must be small in size.

Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement

IMPORTANCE

The benefits of responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. The required DSSs provide a window into current data sharing rates, practices, and norms among trialists and sponsors.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the implementation of the ICMJE DSS requirement in 3 leading medical journals: JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a cross-sectional study of clinical trial reports published as articles in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM between July 1, 2018, and April 4, 2020. Articles not eligible for DSS, including observational studies and letters or correspondence, were excluded. A MEDLINE/PubMed search identified 487 eligible clinical trials in JAMA (112 trials), Lancet (147 trials), and NEJM (228 trials). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently.

EXPOSURE

Publication of clinical trial reports in an ICMJE medical journal requiring a DSS.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes of the study were declared data availability and actual data availability in repositories. Other captured outcomes were data type, access, and conditions and reasons for data availability or unavailability. Associations with funding sources were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 334 of 487 articles (68.6%; 95% CI, 64%-73%) declared data sharing, with nonindustry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (89%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61%; 95% CI, 54%-68%). However, only 2 IPD sets (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.5%) were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (143 of 334 articles [42.8%]), repository (89 of 334 articles [26.6%]), and company (78 of 334 articles [23.4%]). Among the 89 articles declaring that IPD would be stored in repositories, only 17 (19.1%) deposited data, mostly because of embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% of data-sharing articles (158 of 334), and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to data set location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements.

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).

How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess

Citations can be an indicator of publication significance, utility, attention, visibility or short-term impact but analysts need to confirm whether a high citation count for an individual is a genuine reflection of influence or a consequence of extraordinary, even excessive, self-citation. It has recently been suggested there may be increasing misrepresentation of research performance by individuals who self-cite inordinately to achieve scores and win rewards. In this paper we consider self-referencing and self-citing, describe the typical shape of self-citation patterns for carefully curated publication sets authored by 3517 Highly Cited Researchers and quantify the variance in the distribution of self-citation rates within and between all 21 Essential Science Indicators’ fields. We describe both a generic level of median self-referencing rates, common to most fields, and a graphical, distribution-driven assessment of excessive self-citation that demarcates a threshold not dependent on statistical tests or percentiles (since for some fields all values are within a central ‘normal’ range). We describe this graphical procedure for identifying exceptional self-citation rates but emphasize the necessity for expert interpretation of the citation profiles of specific individuals, particularly in fields with atypical self-citation patterns.

Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors

Much has been said about the need for improving the current definitions of scientific authorship, but an aspect that is often overlooked is how to formulate and communicate these definitions to ensure that they are comprehensible and useful for researchers, notably researchers active in international research consortia. In light of a rapid increase in international collaborations within natural sciences, this article uses authorship of this branch of sciences as an example and provides suggestions to improve the comprehensibility of the definitions of authorship in natural sciences. It assesses whether the definition of authorship provided by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity can deal with current issues and problems of scientific authorship. Notably, problems that are experienced in project groups with researchers coming from multiple countries. Using theories developed by Jürgen Habermas and Robert Merton, a normative framework is developed to articulate ethical authorship in natural sciences. Accordingly, enriching the current definition of authorship with normative elements and using discipline-specific metaphors to communicate them are introduced as possible ways of improving the comprehensibility of the definition of authorship in international environments. Finally, this article provides a proposal to be considered in the future revisions of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014-2017)

Serious concerns about research quality have catalysed a number of reform initiatives intended to improve transparency and reproducibility and thus facilitate self-correction, increase efficiency and enhance research credibility. Meta-research has evaluated the merits of some individual initiatives; however, this may not capture broader trends reflecting the cumulative contribution of these efforts. In this study, we manually examined a random sample of 250 articles in order to estimate the prevalence of a range of transparency and reproducibility-related indicators in the social sciences literature published between 2014 and 2017. Few articles indicated availability of materials (16/151, 11% [95% confidence interval, 7% to 16%]), protocols (0/156, 0% [0% to 1%]), raw data (11/156, 7% [2% to 13%]) or analysis scripts (2/156, 1% [0% to 3%]), and no studies were pre-registered (0/156, 0% [0% to 1%]). Some articles explicitly disclosed funding sources (or lack of; 74/236, 31% [25% to 37%]) and some declared no conflicts of interest (36/236, 15% [11% to 20%]). Replication studies were rare (2/156, 1% [0% to 3%]). Few studies were included in evidence synthesis via systematic review (17/151, 11% [7% to 16%]) or meta-analysis (2/151, 1% [0% to 3%]). Less than half the articles were publicly available (101/250, 40% [34% to 47%]). Minimal adoption of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices could be undermining the credibility and efficiency of social science research. The present study establishes a baseline that can be revisited in the future to assess progress.

Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature

OBJECTIVES

As much as 50%-90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 300 oncology publications published from 2014 to 2018. We extracted key reproducibility and transparency characteristics in a duplicative fashion by blinded investigators using a pilot tested Google Form.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this investigation is the frequency of key reproducible or transparent research practices followed in published biomedical and clinical oncology literature.

RESULTS

Of the 300 publications randomly sampled, 296 were analysed for reproducibility characteristics. Of these 296 publications, 194 contained empirical data that could be analysed for reproducible and transparent research practices. Raw data were available for nine studies (4.6%). Five publications (2.6%) provided a protocol. Despite our sample including 15 clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, only 7 included a preregistration statement. Less than 25% (65/194) of publications provided an author conflict of interest statement.

CONCLUSION

We found that key reproducibility and transparency characteristics were absent from a random sample of published oncology publications. We recommend required preregistration for all eligible trials and systematic reviews, published protocols for all manuscripts, and deposition of raw data and metadata in public repositories.

Development and Preliminary Validation of a New Measure of Values in Scientific Work

In this paper we describe the development and initial psychometric evaluation of a new measure, the values in scientific work (VSW). This scale assesses the level of importance that investigators attach to different VSW. It taps a broad range of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social values that motivate the work of scientists, including values specific to scientific work (e.g., truth and integrity) and more classic work values (e.g., security and prestige) in the context of science. Notably, the values represented in this scale are relevant to scientists regardless of their career stage and research focus. We administered the VSW and a measure of global values to 203 NIH-funded investigators. Exploratory factor analyses suggest the delineation of eight VSW, including autonomy, research ethics, social impact, income, collaboration, innovation and growth, conserving relationships, and job security. These VSW showed predictable and distinct associations with global values. Implications of these findings for work on research integrity and scientific misconduct are discussed.

The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers' Perceptions of Rules in Science

Successfully navigating the norms of a society is a complex task that involves recognizing diverse kinds of rules as well as the relative weight attached to them. In the United States (U.S.), different kinds of rules-federal statutes and regulations, scientific norms, and professional ideals-guide the work of researchers. Penalties for violating these different kinds of rules and norms can range from the displeasure of peers to criminal sanctions. We proposed that it would be more difficult for researchers working in the U.S. who were born in other nations to distinguish the seriousness of violating rules across diverse domains. We administered a new measure, the evaluating rules in science task (ERST), to National Institutes of Health-funded investigators (101 born in the U.S. and 102 born outside of the U.S.). The ERST assessed perceptions of the seriousness of violating research regulations, norms, and ideals, and allowed us to calculate the degree to which researchers distinguished between the seriousness of each rule category. The ERST also assessed researchers' predictions of the seriousness that research integrity officers (RIOs) would assign to the rules. We compared researchers' predictions to the seriousness ratings of 112 RIOs working at U.S. research-intensive universities. U.S.-born researchers were significantly better at distinguishing between the seriousness of violating federal research regulations and violating ideals of science, and they were more accurate in their predictions of the views of RIOs. Acculturation to the U.S. moderated the effects of nationality on accuracy. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of future research and education.

Research practices and assessment of research misconduct

This article discusses the responsible conduct of research, questionable research practices, and research misconduct. Responsible conduct of research is often defined in terms of a set of abstract, normative principles, professional standards, and ethics in doing research. In order to accommodate the normative principles of scientific research, the professional standards, and a researcher’s moral principles, transparent research practices can serve as a framework for responsible conduct of research. We suggest a “prune-and-add” project structure to enhance transparency and, by extension, responsible conduct of research. Questionable research practices are defined as practices that are detrimental to the research process. The prevalence of questionable research practices remains largely unknown, and reproducibility of findings has been shown to be problematic. Questionable practices are discouraged by transparent practices because practices that arise from them will become more apparent to scientific peers. Most effective might be preregistrations of research design, hypotheses, and analyses, which reduce particularism of results by providing an a priori research scheme. Research misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), which is clearly the worst type of research practice. Despite it being clearly wrong, it can be approached from a scientific and legal perspective. The legal perspective sees research misconduct as a form of white-collar crime. The scientific perspective seeks to answer the following question: “Were results invalidated because of the misconduct?” We review how misconduct is typically detected, how its detection can be improved, and how prevalent it might be. Institutions could facilitate detection of data fabrication and falsification by implementing data auditing. Nonetheless, the effect of misconduct is pervasive: many retracted articles are still cited after the retraction has been issued.

Main points

Researchers systematically evaluate their own conduct as more responsible than colleagues, but not as responsible as they would like.

Transparent practices, facilitated by the Open Science Framework, help embody scientific norms that promote responsible conduct.

Questionable research practices harm the research process and work counter to the generally accepted scientific norms, but are hard to detect.

Research misconduct requires active scrutiny of the research community because editors and peer-reviewers do not pay adequate attention to detecting this. Tips are given on how to improve your detection of potential problems.

Reducing Ethical Hazards in Knowledge Production

This article discusses the ethics of knowledge production (KP) from a cultural point of view, in contrast with the more usual emphasis on the ethical issues facing individuals involved in KP. Here, the emphasis is on the cultural environment within which individuals, groups and institutions perform KP. A principal purpose is to suggest ways in which reliable scientific knowledge could be produced more efficiently. The distinction between ethical hazard and (un)ethical behaviour is noted. Ethical hazards cannot be eliminated but they can be reduced if the cultural ambience is suitable. The main suggestions for reducing ethical hazards in KP relate to the review process. It is argued that some defects of the current, largely anonymous, review process could be ameliorated by a process of comprehensive, open and ongoing review (COOR). This includes partial professionalisation of the work of reviewing. Review at several stages is a vital part of the long filtering that incorporates some claims into the canon of reliable knowledge. The review process would be an acknowledged and explicit part of KP--a respected, public and rewarded activity. COOR would be expensive but cost-effective. The costs should be built explicitly into research culture. Finally, the considerations about a more 'KP friendly' culture lead to advocacy of a 'long-term, short-term' synthesis; that is, of the synthesis of long-term vision, such as a more cooperative and less competitive culture, with incremental changes which may be implemented in the short term.

'AN INCREDIBLY STEEP HILL:' HOW GENDER, RACE, AND CLASS SHAPE PERSPECTIVES ON ACADEMIC CAREERS AMONG BEGINNING BIOMEDICAL PHD STUDENTS

This paper analyzes perspectives on academic careers among 60 beginning PhD students in the biomedical sciences. It presents seven perspectives on academic careers articulated by the students in the sample and explains the way that race/ethnicity, gender, and students' family education backgrounds are tied to those perspectives. The findings show that traditionally underrepresented students find the academic career path less navigable than students from well-represented groups. Among underrepresented students, even those from higher family education backgrounds, experiences related to race/ethnicity and gender often inform perceptions of the academic career even before they start their graduate research training. As the composition of the graduate population changes to include more women and underrepresented racial and ethnic minority men, it is important to note that not all graduate students enter with the same perspectives and views of the academic career and that there are meaningful differences in perspectives across demographic lines. Graduate programs can play a critical role in providing information and support for graduate students as they navigate their career choices, particularly at the earliest stages of training. By becoming sensitive to students' perspectives on career options, and understanding how differences in perspectives arise, mentors and others can align advising strategies with the experiences and views of students.

Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction

Efforts to advance research integrity in light of concerns about misbehavior in research rely heavily on education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of RCR instruction as a remedy. Assessment is essential in RCR education if the research community wishes to expend the effort of instructors, students, and trainees wisely. This article presents key considerations that instructors and course directors must consider in aligning learning objectives with instructional methods and assessment measures, and it provides illustrative examples. Above all, in order for RCR educators to assess outcomes more effectively, they must align assessment to their learning objectives and attend to the validity of the measures used.

Research guidelines in the era of large-scale collaborations: an analysis of Genome-wide Association Study Consortia

Scientific research has shifted from studies conducted by single investigators to the creation of large consortia. Genetic epidemiologists, for example, now collaborate extensively for genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The effect has been a stream of confirmed disease-gene associations. However, effects on human subjects oversight, data-sharing, publication and authorship practices, research organization and productivity, and intellectual property remain to be examined. The aim of this analysis was to identify all research consortia that had published the results of a GWAS analysis since 2005, characterize them, determine which have publicly accessible guidelines for research practices, and summarize the policies in these guidelines. A review of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies identified 55 GWAS consortia as of April 1, 2011. These consortia were comprised of individual investigators, research centers, studies, or other consortia and studied 48 different diseases or traits. Only 14 (25%) were found to have publicly accessible research guidelines on consortia websites. The available guidelines provide information on organization, governance, and research protocols; half address institutional review board approval. Details of publication, authorship, data-sharing, and intellectual property vary considerably. Wider access to consortia guidelines is needed to establish appropriate research standards with broad applicability to emerging forms of large-scale collaboration.