Sharing research data – Nerrolyn Ramstrand, Stefania Fatone, Michael P Dillon, Brian J Hafner, 2020

“Responsible data sharing offers considerable benefits to researchers, funding agencies and the public. It promotes transparency in research, facilitates novel scientific inquiry, avoids duplication of effort and maximises benefits of the original research investment. We believe that Prosthetics and Orthotics International can play an important role in promoting and supporting data sharing initiatives. When appropriate, and with careful attention to ethical principles, we encourage our authors to share their research data in reputable data repositories.”

Open Science Practices at the Journal of Traumatic Stress – Kerig – 2020 – Journal of Traumatic Stress – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  This editorial describes new initiatives designed to promote and maintain open science practices (OSP) at the Journal of Traumatic Stress, to be enacted beginning January 2020. Following a brief description of the rationale underlying the argument for conducting and reporting research in ways that maximize transparency and replicability, this article summarizes changes in Journal submission and publication procedures that are designed to foster and highlight such practices. These include requesting an Open Science Practices Statement from authors of all accepted manuscripts, which will be published as supplementary material for each article, and providing authors with the opportunity to earn OSP badges for preregistering studies, making data available to other researchers by posting on a third party archive, and making available research materials and codes used in the study.

 

Preprint servers: a ‘rush to publish’ or ‘just in time delivery’ for science? | Thorax

“At Thorax [a journal from BMJ] we embrace this new pathway to publishing medical research findings and we welcome the submission of manuscripts which have previously appeared on a preprint server. We do, however, ask all submitting authors to make this clear in the covering letter at the time of submission. The first batch of 10 articles, which previously appeared as preprints, have been through peer review with Thorax. The acceptance of articles which have previously appeared as a preprint is now widespread among medical journals.5 6 Acceptance of preprints is, however, not universal and authors are well advised to check the guidelines of their target journals before they post a preprint….

In due course, when the COVID-19 curve (flattened or otherwise) hits baseline, researchers and journals must use the preprint literature wisely and as it is intended—as a way to share research data rapidly before formal expert review in a journal. Any individual claims should be treated with healthy scepticism, until verified by peer review. …”

Transparency and open access in CF research – Journal of Cystic Fibrosis

Abstract:  In response to recent JCF Editorials regarding academic publishing, we highlight efforts to promote transparency, foster open access and recognize methodological contributions to CF [Cystic Fibrosis] clinical/translational research. We believe these efforts have been vital to improve methodological rigor and clinical impact of published research.

 

Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial | Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:  Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing. A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles. The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication. The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups. The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools. What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.

 

 

Revisiting 2019, setting goals for 2020, and reflecting upon open science

“The major objectives of the Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia (JBP, Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology) are to disseminate Brazilian research in the field of respiratory diseases and related areas, to expand the internationalization of the journal, and to act as one of the major sources of updates for the members of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (Brazilian Thoracic Society), increasingly reaching out to our readers. The JBP will celebrate its 45th anniversary in 2020. Since its inception, it has matured in the dissemination of knowledge by monitoring the developments and occasional events occurring in the field of pulmonology, continuing to be the leading Latin American journal in the field. The secondary and indirect objectives that should be highlighted are to increase the interest of recent graduates in the field and to promote the development of new researchers in related areas….

In Plan S,5 organized by an international coalition, as well as in presentations in various forums and publications by the SciELO Program, it has been suggested that open practices of scientific communication be adopted over the next five years. This scientific model includes open and unrestricted access to all peer-reviewed publications, acceptance of manuscripts previously deposited on a preprint server, adoption of the continuous publication modality, making all research content available in detail, and the possibility of open peer review.5-8 However, although most of the proposals put forth have been in agreement regarding open communication, which will certainly contribute to the progress of science, establish greater transparency in editorial processes, and democratize access to information, there are still certain questions about the universal adoption of this policy, even within the international scientific community, especially regarding the possibility of opening the peer review process (i.e., disclosing the identity of the reviewers to the authors). Certainly, there are advantages to an open peer review process, because it will increase the importance of the reviewers and promote a trend toward improvement of the quality of the evaluations, because all of the participants are likely to be more careful in carrying out their part in the process and to venture out of their comfort zone. However, there are potential negative aspects of this process, including a higher risk that reviewers will decline to participate in the peer review process (given that it has already been difficult to find reviewers in the various areas of knowledge using the traditional model) and a potential risk of “retaliation” by authors in the event of negative reviews regarding the manuscript in question….”

A Big Year for Open Access Chemistry Publishing – Novara – 2020 – ChemistryOpen – Wiley Online Library

“In the last 10 years the number of chemistry papers published as open access has doubled, and is currently around 25% of the total…

In a growing publishing landscape in which new open access journals are launched every year, ChemistryOpen is proud to have been the first fully open?access society?owned chemistry journal, which published its first issue back at the beginning of 2012, putting us in a strong position going forward. Co?owned and supported by ChemPubSoc Europe (a consortium of 16 European chemical societies), ChemistryOpen remains fully compliant with Plan?S and global mandates and is a great choice for your next open?access publication.

ChemistryOpen has been growing tremendously over the past year. Thanks to the rising interest for open access publishing in chemistry in general, and the increased visibility of ChemistryOpen, we have received our highest yearly number of submissions to date and achieved a record?breaking number of downloads that amounted to a 60?% increase on the previous year. Volume?8 will be the journal?s largest volume so far, with over 170 papers published. A big thanks to all of our authors for sending us fascinating research from all over the world, and enabling the journal to reach a strong position in the ever changing and expanding publishing landscape. We are ready to welcome the new publishing year 2020 with optimism and enthusiasm!…”

No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis | Molecular Brain | Full Text

Abstract:  A reproducibility crisis is a situation where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced. Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing, p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, I propose that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility.

As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.

Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results and to increase public trust in science.