“Our findings suggest that open article access to the reporting guideline had a significant impact on 2- and 5-year citation counts of reporting guidelines. This finding is in direct contrast to recent studies that have found no association between open access status and citation impact25,49. Open access publications provide researchers with free access, without subscription, payment or registration to permit further research development without restriction. However, although open access publication may increase downloads, these may be generated from readers who do not publish themselves or influence citations.50 As reporting guidelines are predominantly read by authors that are considering publication of research, our research findings would confirm that open access to reporting guidelines successfully increased their citations….”
Abstract: The protozoan parasite Tritrichomonas foetus causes early embryonic death in cattle which results in severe economic loss. In the United States, there are no drugs are approved for treatment of this pathogen. In this study, we evaluated in vitro anti-protozoal effects of compounds from an open access chemical library against T. foetus trophozoites. An initial high-throughput screen identified 16 compounds of interest. Further investigation revealed 12 compounds that inhibited parasite growth and 4 compounds with lethal effects. For lethal compounds, dose-response curves were constructed and the LD50 was calculated for laboratory and field strains of T. foetus. Our experiments revealed chemical scaffolds that were parasiticidal in the micromolar range, and these scaffolds provide a starting point for drug discovery efforts. Further investigation is still needed to investigate suitability of these scaffolds and related compounds in food animals. Importantly, open access chemical libraries can be useful for identifying compounds with activity against protozoan pathogens of veterinary importance.
Abstract: Introduction: We are in an era of bioinformatics and cheminformatics where we can predict data in the fields of medicine, the environment, engineering and public health. Approaches with open access in silico tools have revolutionized disease management due to early prediction of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiles of the chemically designed and eco-friendly next-generation drugs.
Areas covered: This review meticulously encompasses the fundamental functions of open access in silico prediction tools (webservers and standalone software) and advocates their use in drug discovery research for the safety and reliability of any candidate-drug. This review also aims to help support new researchers in the field of drug design.
Expert opinion: The choice of in silico tools is critically important for drug discovery and the accuracy of ADMET prediction. The accuracy largely depends on the types of dataset, the algorithm used, the quality of the model, the available endpoints for prediction, and user requirement. The key is to use multiple in silico tools for predictions and comparing the results, followed by the identification of the most probable prediction.
“2020 marks the fifth year in which ACS Omega has published high-quality content that describes new findings in chemistry and interfacing areas of science, without any perceived evaluation of immediate impact. Since January, all front covers and much of our marketing material have included a badge commemorating this significant milestone.
For us—the Editors, the journal, and the staff at ACS Publications—time seems to have passed remarkably quickly since we first set out on this mission to provide a fully open-access platform to disseminate technically sound research that advances the frontiers of science through original ideas. The journal has come a long way since the first issue in volume 1 was released in July 2016, and the quality of the work published throughout this time has been consistently high. Starting with the publication of research articles only, we then added “Perspective” and “Mini-Review” manuscript types to allow exposure of recent trends in a wide variety of areas, thus broadening the scope and appeal of the journal. The year-on-year increase in submissions and published output reflects the progress the journal has made. ACS Omega has published over 7000 articles from researchers based in 98 different countries. We received our latest impact factor of 2.87 this summer and earned 10?646 citations in 2019 (Journal Citation Reports, Clarivate), another indicator of the progress the journal has made in a short space of time. We have our Editors (both past and present), our dedicated ACS staff, our reviewers, our authors, and our readership to thank for the vital contributions they have made to the success of the journal….”
“At Wiley, we support the growing movement to make research more open, because this leads to a fairer, more efficient and accountable research landscape, which will ultimately drive a more effective and faster pace of discovery. We are committed to improving openness, transparency, and reproducibility of research. Fundamental to enabling reproducible research is the easy access to and ready discovery of its supporting data, made possible through a robust and universal framework that allows research data to be cited through standard reference lists. This will ensure that data is treated as a first-class research object, easily accessible as part of the scholarly literature, and that researchers are credited for their work.
Select an option below to learn more about Wiley’s data sharing and citation policies and service….”
“3.5.7 Registered reports and open practices badges
One possible way to incorporate all the information listed above and to combat the stigma against papers that report nonsignificant findings is through the implementation of Registered Reports or rewarding transparent research practices. Registered Reports are empirical articles designed to eliminate publication bias and incentivize best scientific practice. Registered Reports are a form of empirical article in which the methods and the proposed analyses are preregistered and reviewed prior to research being conducted. This format is designed to minimize bias, while also allowing complete flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings. The cornerstone of the Registered Reports format is that the authors submit as a Stage 1 manuscript an introduction, complete and transparent methods, and the results of any pilot experiments (where applicable) that motivate the research proposal, written in the future tense. These proposals will include a description of the key research question and background literature, hypotheses, experimental design and procedures, analysis pipeline, a statistical power analysis, and full description of the planned comparisons. Submissions, which are reviewed by editors, peer reviewers and in some journals, statistical editors, meeting the rigorous and transparent requirements for conducting the research proposed are offered an in?principle acceptance, meaning that the journal guarantees publication if the authors conduct the experiment in accordance with their approved protocol. Many journals publish the Stage 1 report, which could be beneficial not only for citations, but for the authors’ progress reports and tenure packages. Following data collection, the authors prepare and resubmit a Stage 2 manuscript that includes the introduction and methods from the original submission plus their obtained results and discussion. The manuscript will undergo full review; referees will consider whether the data test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome?neutral conditions, will ensure the authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures, and will review any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors to confirm they are justified, methodologically sound, and informative. At this stage, the authors must also share their data (see also Wiley’s Data Sharing and Citation Policy) and analysis scripts on a public and freely accessible archive such as Figshare and Dryad or at the Open Science Framework. Additional details, including template reviewer and author guidelines, can be found by clicking the link to the Open Science Framework from the Center for Open Science (see also94).
The authors who practice transparent and rigorous science should be recognized for this work. Funders can encourage and reward open practice in significant ways (see https://wellcome.ac.uk/what?we?do/our?work/open?research). One way journals can support this is to award badges to the authors in recognition of these open scientific practices. Badges certify that a particular practice was followed, but do not define good practice. As defined by the Open Science Framework, three badges can be earned. The Open Data badge is earned for making publicly available the digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results. These data must be accessible via an open?access repository, and must be permanent (e.g., a registration on the Open Science Framework, or an independent repository at www.re3data.org). The Open Materials badge is earned when the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis are made publicly available. The Preregistered badge is earned for having a preregistered design, whereas the Preregistered+Analysis Plan badge is earned for having both a preregistered research design and an analysis plan for the research; the authors must report results according to that plan. Additional information about the badges, including the necessary information to be awarded a badge, can be found by clicking this link to the Open Science Framework from the Center for Open Science….”
Abstract: Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ?97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ?50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, “How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?” and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and sex (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ?50% in Asia and Latin America, and ?40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent’s IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.
Abstract: The Open Science movement has gained considerable traction in the last decade. The Open Science movement tries to increase trust in research results and open the access to all elements of a research project to the public. Central to these goals, Open Science has promoted five critical tenets: Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access. All Open Science elements can be thought of as extensions to the traditional way of achieving openness in science, which has been scientific publication of research outcomes in journals or books. Open Science in education sciences, however, has the potential to be much more than a safeguard against questionable research. Open Science in education science provides opportunities to (a) increase the transparency and therefore replicability of research and (b) develop and answer research questions about individuals with learning disabilities and learning difficulties that were previously impossible to answer due to complexities in data analysis methods. We will provide overviews of the main tenets of Open Science (i.e., Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access), show how they are in line with grant funding agencies’ expectations for rigorous research processes, and present resources on best practices for each of the tenets.
Abstract: Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, and Turkey) show lower levels of bioRxiv adoption. We also describe a set of ‘contributor countries’ (including Uganda, Croatia and Thailand): researchers from these countries appear almost exclusively as non-senior authors on international collaborations. Lastly, we find multiple journals that publish a disproportionate number of preprints from some countries, a dynamic that almost always benefits manuscripts from the US.
Abstract: As of February 11, 2020, more than 43,000 cases of a novel coronavirus (2019–nCoV) have been reported worldwide. Using publicly available data regarding the transmissibility potential (i.e. basic reproduction number) of 2019–nCoV, we demonstrate that relevant preprint studies generated considerable search and news media interest prior to the publication of peer-reviewed studies in the same topic area. We then show that preprint estimate ranges for the basic reproduction number associated with 2019–nCoV overlap with those presented by peer-reviewed studies that were published at a later date. Taken together, we argue that preprints are capable of driving global discourse during public health crises; however, we recommend that a consensus-based approach – as we have employed here – be considered as a means of assessing the robustness of preprint findings prior to peer review.