Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy

Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science-such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines-could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals' policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.

Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices

BACKGROUND

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.

METHODS

We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.

DISCUSSION

The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/ .

The Role of Clearinghouses in Promoting Transparent Research: A Methodological Study of Transparency Practices for Preventive Interventions

Transparency of research methods is vital to science, though incentives are variable, with only some journals and funders adopting transparency policies. Clearinghouses are also important stakeholders; however, to date none have implemented formal procedures that facilitate transparent research. Using data from the longest standing clearinghouse, we examine transparency practices for preventive interventions to explore the role of online clearinghouses in incentivizing researchers to make their research more transparent. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 88 evaluation reports reviewed in 2018-2019 by Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, when the clearinghouse began checking for trial registrations, and expanded on these efforts by applying broader transparency standards to interventions eligible for an endorsement on the Blueprints website during the study period. Reports were recent, with 84% published between 2010 and 2019. We found that few reports had data, code, or research materials that were publicly available. Meanwhile, 40% had protocols that were registered, but only 8% were registered prospectively, while one-quarter were registered before conducting analyses. About one-third included details in a registered protocol describing the treatment contrast and planned inclusions, and less than 5% had a registered statistical analysis plan (e.g., planned analytical methods, pre-specified covariates). Confirmatory research was distinguished from exploratory work in roughly 40% of reports. Reports published more recently (after 2015) had higher rates of transparency. Preventive intervention research needs to be more transparent. Since clearinghouses rely on robust findings to make well-informed decisions and researchers are incentivized to meet clearinghouse standards, clearinghouses should consider policies that encourage transparency to improve the credibility of evidence-based interventions.