Blog
About

579
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    9
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found
      Is Open Access

      Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency.

      PLoS Biology

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Social science. Promoting transparency in social science research.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature

              There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest. In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000–2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare (n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest. The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014 (94.4% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts (0% in 2000, 15.4% in 2014) or no conflicts (5.6% in 2000, 50.0% in 2014) increased. Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
                27171007

                Comments

                2017-08-30 12:58 UTC
                +1

                Comment on this article