Dataset Information

Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.

Methods

We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.

Discussion

The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/ .

SUBMITTER: Mayo-Wilson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8173977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the context of exchange technologies, such as health information exchange (HIE), existing technology acceptance theories should be expanded to consider not only the cognitive beliefs resulting in adoption behavior but also the affect provoked by the sharing nature of the technology. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to study HIE adoption using a trust-centered model. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action, the technology adoption literature, and the trust transfer mechanism, we theoretically explained and empirically tested the impacts of the perceived transparency of privacy policy and trust in health care providers on cognitive and emotional trust in an HIE. Moreover, we analyzed the effects of cognitive and emotional trust on the intention to opt in to the HIE and willingness to disclose health information. METHODS:A Web-based survey was conducted using data from a sample of 493 individuals who were aware of the HIE through experiences with a (or multiple) provider(s) participating in an HIE network. RESULTS:Structural Equation Modeling analysis results provided empirical support for the proposed model. Our findings indicated that when patients trust in health care providers, and they are aware of HIE security measures, HIE sharing procedures, and privacy terms, they feel more in control, more assured, and less at risk. Moreover, trust in providers has a significant moderating effect on building trust in HIE efforts (P<.05). Results also showed that patient trust in HIE may take the forms of opt-in intentions to HIE and patients' willingness to disclose health information that are exchanged through the HIE (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this research should be of interest to both academics and practitioners. The findings provide an in-depth dimension of the HIE privacy policy that should be addressed by the health care organizations to exchange personal health information in a secure and private manner. This study can contribute to trust transfer theory and enrich the literature on HIE efforts. Primary and secondary care providers can also identify how to leverage the benefit of patients' trust and trust transfer process to promote HIE initiatives nationwide.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. METHODS:The online author's instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal's data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. RESULTS:A total of 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. A total of 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. A total of 9.1% of journals mentioned data sharing indirectly, and only 14.8% addressed protein, proteomic, and/or genomic data sharing. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing criteria. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. DISCUSSION:Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.