Characteristics of mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was established in 2000 to address concerns about publication bias and public access to information about clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate differences between for-profit and non-profit sponsors of efficacy mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on key trial characteristics that relate to data integrity. We also sought to evaluate whether the registry is fulfilling its purpose as a means of promoting transparency between researchers and the public by providing complete and quality information about the trials it contains. We found that trials tend to be small, use a placebo instead of an active comparator, and employ randomization and blinding. We discuss the implications of these design characteristics and the limitations of the registry.

 

Petition · Right to share publications · Change.org

“As scientists and scholars, we create the intellectual content that appears in APA [American Psychological Association] Journals. We conduct the research, write the papers and review the work at no cost to your journals. We also edit your journals for minimal income. This makes the academic publication system incredibly profitable for publishers.

It deeply concerns us that APA uses these profits to pay staff to threaten us to remove these products of our free labor from our academic websites, where other academics can read and build on our work. 

We engage in practices like voluntary reviewing for APA because we feel a commitment to producing a public good that others can use to promote scientific progress. By using these profits to restrict us from sharing our own work, you have privatized a public good and made our relationship transactional. Of course, it is entirely within your rights to do so.

If you wish to make this relationship transactional, we demand that you use the profits from our work to pay us for reviewing. If we learn that you have pressured any of the signees to remove their own APA publications from their academic website, then all signees will demand that you pay us $300 per review (unless otherwise agreed upon in writing). 

In short, you have a simple choice: You continue to accept our free labor and allow us to share the products of our labor on our academic websites OR we move to a transactional relationship and you pay us for our reviewing and we use that money to pay for open access rights for our papers (or any other purpose we deem relevant).”

What happened when a professor was accused of sharing his own work on his website

“Like many academics, William Cunningham, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, shares his own articles — published and soon-to-be — on his website. And like most academics, he does so in the interest of science, not personal profit.

So Cunningham and hundreds of his colleagues were recently irked by a takedown notice he received from the American Psychological Association, telling him that the articles he had published through the organization and then posted on his website were in violation of copyright law. The notice triggered a chain of responses — including a warning from his website platform, WordPress, that multiple such violations put the future of his entire website at risk. And because the APA had previously issued similar takedown notices, the threat of losing his website seemed real to Cunningham.

In response, psychologists started a petition to the APA, saying that if it didn’t stop policing authors’ personal websites for the sharing of science, then it needed to pay peer reviewers $300 for each article review….”

Open Up – the Mission Statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab on Open Science

Abstract:  The present paper is the mission statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab regarding Open Science. As early-career researchers (ECRs) in the lab, we first state our personal motivation to conduct research based on the principles of Open Science. We then describe how we incorporate four specific Open Science practices (i.e., Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Access) into our scientific workflow. In more detail, we explain how Open Science practices are embedded into the so-called ‘co-pilot’ system in our lab. The ‘co-pilot’ researcher is involved in all tasks of the ‘pilot’ researcher, that is designing a study, double-checking experimental and data analysis scripts, as well as writing the manuscript. The lab has set up this co-pilot system to increase transparency, reduce potential errors that could occur during the entire workflow, and to intensify collaborations between lab members. Finally, we discuss potential solutions for general problems that could arise when practicing Open Science.

Open Up – the Mission Statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab on Open Science

Abstract:  The present paper is the mission statement of the Control of Impulsive Action (Ctrl-ImpAct) Lab regarding Open Science. As early-career researchers (ECRs) in the lab, we first state our personal motivation to conduct research based on the principles of Open Science. We then describe how we incorporate four specific Open Science practices (i.e., Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source, and Open Access) into our scientific workflow. In more detail, we explain how Open Science practices are embedded into the so-called ‘co-pilot’ system in our lab. The ‘co-pilot’ researcher is involved in all tasks of the ‘pilot’ researcher, that is designing a study, double-checking experimental and data analysis scripts, as well as writing the manuscript. The lab has set up this co-pilot system to increase transparency, reduce potential errors that could occur during the entire workflow, and to intensify collaborations between lab members. Finally, we discuss potential solutions for general problems that could arise when practicing Open Science.

North American professors slow to embrace sharing research data | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Senior North American faculty appear to be slow in adopting online tools for research collaboration, suggesting academics rather than their journals are the chief obstacle to open access.

An analysis by the non-profit Center for Open Science found that its main scientist-to-scientist sharing tool was getting relatively weak adoption in the US and among the nation’s highest-ranking professors.

By country, the US and Canada were among the nations slowest to participate, while the UK and Australia were among the most receptive, according to the study of tenure-track faculty usage rates in psychology, the six-year-old centre’s initial target group….

Funding agencies were “starting to do more” to encourage data-sharing practices, while “the farthest behind are the universities”, which were generally too decentralised to impose data-sharing practices on their faculty, [Brian Nosek] said….”

Open science practices in clinical psychology journals: An audit study.

Abstract:  We conducted an audit of 60 clinical psychology journals, covering the first 2 quartiles by impact factor on Web of Science. We evaluated editorial policies in 5 domains crucial to reproducibility and transparency (prospective registration, data sharing, preprints, endorsement of reporting guidelines and conflict of interest [COI] disclosure). We examined implementation in a randomly selected cross-sectional sample of 201 articles published in 2017 in the “best practice” journals, defined as having explicit supportive policies in 4 out of 5 domains. Our findings showed that 15 journals cited prospective registration, 40 data sharing, 15 explicitly permitted preprints, 28 endorsed reporting guidelines, and 52 had mandatory policies for COI disclosure. Except for COI disclosure, few policies were mandatory: registration in 15 journals, data sharing in 1, and reporting guidelines for randomized trials in 18 and for meta-analyses in 15. Seventeen journals were identified as “best practice.” An analysis of recent articles showed extremely low compliance for prospective registration (3% articles) and data sharing (2%). One preprint could be identified. Reporting guidelines were endorsed in 19% of the articles, though for most articles this domain was rated as nonapplicable. Only half of the articles included a COI disclosure. Desired open science policies should become clear and mandatory, and their enforcement streamlined by reducing the multiplicity of guidelines and templates.

NOT-MH-19-033: Notice of Data Sharing Policy for the National Institute of Mental Health

“Data will be shared with the research community when papers using the data have been accepted for publication or at the end of the award period (including the first no cost extension), whichever occurs sooner….”

NOT-MH-19-033: Notice of Data Sharing Policy for the National Institute of Mental Health

“Data will be shared with the research community when papers using the data have been accepted for publication or at the end of the award period (including the first no cost extension), whichever occurs sooner….”

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, a Preliminary Report

Open science is on the rise. Across disciplines, there are increasing rates of sharing data, making available underlying materials and protocols, and preregistering studies and analysis plans.  Hundreds of services have emerged to support open science behaviors at every stage of the research lifecycle.  But, what proportion of the research community is practicing open science? Where is penetration of these behaviors strongest and weakest?  Answers to these questions are important for evaluating progress in culture reform and for strategic planning of where to invest resources next.  

 

The hardest part of getting meaningful answers to these questions is quantifying the population that is NOT doing the behaviors.  For example, in a recent post, Nici Pfeiffer summarized the accelerating growth of OSF users on the occasion of hitting 150,000 registered users.  That number and non-linear growth suggests cultural movement associated with this one service, but how much movement?…”