Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing – Prager – 2019 – CANCER REPORTS – Wiley Online Library

“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….”

Open access checklist for books and chapters | Open research | Springer Nature

“Many research funders and institutions worldwide have introduced policies requiring authors to make their research openly accessible, whether through immediate open access publication, or through archiving a version of their manuscript in a repository. An increasing number of these policies apply to monographs and chapters in edited collections. Follow our open access checklist to help you meet the requirements of your funders and institutions, and identify potential sources of book processing charge (BPC) or chapter processing charge (CPC) funding if you are publishing OA.”

 

Open access checklist for books and chapters | Open research | Springer Nature

“Many research funders and institutions worldwide have introduced policies requiring authors to make their research openly accessible, whether through immediate open access publication, or through archiving a version of their manuscript in a repository. An increasing number of these policies apply to monographs and chapters in edited collections. Follow our open access checklist to help you meet the requirements of your funders and institutions, and identify potential sources of book processing charge (BPC) or chapter processing charge (CPC) funding if you are publishing OA.”

 

You Want to See My Data? I Thought We Were Friends!

“Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer in the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London. His new book, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth, explains the ideas in this comic, by Zach Weinersmith, in more detail, telling shocking stories of scientific error and misconduct. It also proposes an abundance of ideas for how to rescue science from its current malaise….”

Universities should commit to opening up their research to everyone (opinion)

“Since the novel coronavirus struck, scientific research has been shared, and built upon, at an unprecedented pace. An open and deeply collaborative academic enterprise has emerged, with scientists from around the world sharing data and working together to map the SARS-CoV-2 genome and develop the first vaccines.

During normal times — when we’re not in a pandemic — much of the taxpayer-funded research that universities conduct is locked away by publishers, out of reach for all but those who can afford costly subscriptions. This year, given the dire need to fight a deadly disease, publishers temporarily lifted the paywalls that normally shut out this important knowledge from public view….

The COVID-19 crisis inspired a global collaboration that has led to a scientific renaissance — and we must not revert to our old ways. Imagine the progress that could be made if the international research community worked together to develop treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Climate change, educational equity and racial justice could all be studied through a more expansive and inclusive lens.

Years from now, we will look back at this pandemic as a historic time of incredible challenges, disruption and anguish. But I hope we will also remember it as an inflection point — the end of restricting knowledge to a privileged few and the dawn of a new era in scientific progress.”

Open Access, Open Science, and Coronavirus: Mega trends with historical proportions – Jamali – 2020 – Business Ethics: A European Review – Wiley Online Library

“There have been an impressive number of immediate natural science initiatives in response to COVID?19. For example, COVID?19?related Open Access data repositories have been created (Xu et al., 2020), modeling those established for research into the human genome (Yozwiak, Schaffner, & Sabeti, 2015); real?time data visualization tools are provided by various actors (e.g., John Hopkins University, 2020; Roser, Ritchie, & Ortiz?Ospina, 2020; WHO, 2020); and Nature has established an “Open Peer Review platform” (Johansson & Saderi, 2020). Closer to (our disciplinary) home, noteworthy initiatives include the “COVID?19 Insights” series operated by a number of business sustainability networks (e.g., GRONEN, 2020) or the Academy of Management Learning & Education COVID?19 “Call for Questions” proposal (AMLE, 2020).

All of these initiatives have in common that they aim to make research more inclusive and more immediately available, and thus blend into more general developments that have been labeled as Open Access and Open Science. While Open Access refers to the free availability of research outputs, typically in digital format, Open Science goes beyond that in calling for public accessibility of research data and more generally a collaborative research process (OECD, 2015). Ultimately, Open Access and Open Science are complementary ways of confronting the contemporary for?profit publishing model as we know it (Hiltzik, 2020)….

Open Science can help accelerating the pace of knowledge generation based on the fact that datasets are publicly and readily available for fellow researchers. There is also a quality dimension to Open Science, as a more transparent handling of datasets pushes professionalism and seeks to ensure the implementation of scientific norms that are otherwise difficult to check in the social sciences….”

OSF Preprints | Building trust in preprints: recommendations for servers and other stakeholders

Abstract:  On January 20 and 21, 2020, ASAPbio, in collaboration with EMBL-EBI and Ithaka S+R, convened over 30 representatives from academia, preprint servers, publishers, funders, and standards, indexing and metadata infrastructure organisations at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to develop a series of recommendations for best practices for posting and linking of preprints in the life sciences and ideally the broader research community. We hope that these recommendations offer guidance for new preprint platforms and projects looking to enact best practices and ultimately serve to improve the experience of using preprints for all.

Transparency and open science principles… | Wellcome Open Research

Abstract:  Background: “Open science” is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines.

Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 28 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. This instrument rates the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges.
Results: Across the 28 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25th, 75th percentile] 2.5 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 28) in sleep research and chronobiology journals.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support the recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their guidelines and making adherence to them mandatory.