Pandemic scientific data sharing recommendations: examining and re-imagining pre-print servers after the end of the world-wide emergency

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge. Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published. Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections. Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.

Open Science in eating disorders: Using current evidence to inspire a plan for increasing the transparency of our research

OBJECTIVE

There is increasing consensus that open science practices improve the transparency and quality of clinical science. However, several barriers impede the implementation of these practices at the individual, institutional, and field levels; understanding and addressing these barriers is critical to promoting targeted efforts in increasing effective uptake of open science.

METHODS

Within this research forum, we drew from publicly available online information sources to identify initial characterizations of researchers engaged in several types of open science practices in the field of eating disorders. We use these observations to discuss potential barriers and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.

RESULTS

Data from online open science repositories suggest that individuals using these publishing approaches with pre-prints and articles with eating-disorder-relevant content are predominantly non-male gender identifying, early to mid-career stage, and are more likely to be European-, United States-, or Canada-based.

DISCUSSION

We outline recommendations for tangible ways that the eating disorder field can support broad, increased uptake of open science practices, including supporting initiatives to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions; and prioritizing the development and accessibility of open science resources.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The use of open science practices has the potential to increase the transparency and quality of clinical science. This Forum uses publicly sourced online data to characterize researchers engaged in open science practices in the field of eating disorders. These observations provide an important framework from which to discuss potential barriers to open science and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.