Steps towards Transparency in Research Publishing. Nature Nature, 549(7673):431, September, 2017. doi abstract bibtex As research and editorial processes become increasingly open, scientists and editors need to be proactive but also alert to risks. [Excerpt] [...] The examples given here relate to initiatives by the Nature Research journals, some of which follow pioneering work by other publishers. [...] One such initiative is the checklist introduced by Nature and the Nature journals in 2013 for life-sciences submissions. [...] Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his colleagues [..] looked at the completeness of reporting in journals following the initiatives. [Five steps to transparency] Credit to Macleod and his colleagues: there were no fewer than five welcome types of transparency in this project itself. These embody a gradual trend in which the public release of research results is moving farther away from the traditional form of a single, wrap-up publication. [::] First, the authors published a formal research protocol in a peer-reviewed journal [...]. Such publications are a mechanism, already established in clinical and other interventions research, by which authors ensure that their research is well designed. [...] [::] Second, the authors posted the final draft paper describing their conclusions on a preprint server before submission [::] Third and fourth, the group released the data-analysis plan and the analysis code before data collection was completed. [...] [::] Fifth, the complete data set was publicly deposited on Figshare [...] [] This is an example of the research process being disaggregated, publicly, into its components: peer-reviewed research design, a preprint of outcomes that invites community responses, the release of code and data, and final publication. Such a practice allows greater access to the thinking behind a project. It also provides an opportunity to directly distribute credit to the authors for their efforts on the various components. [...]
@article{natureStepsTransparencyResearch2017,
title = {Steps towards Transparency in Research Publishing},
author = {{Nature}},
year = {2017},
month = sep,
volume = {549},
pages = {431},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/549431a},
abstract = {As research and editorial processes become increasingly open, scientists and editors need to be proactive but also alert to risks.
[Excerpt] [...] The examples given here relate to initiatives by the Nature Research journals, some of which follow pioneering work by other publishers. [...] One such initiative is the checklist introduced by Nature and the Nature journals in 2013 for life-sciences submissions. [...]
Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his colleagues [..] looked at the completeness of reporting in journals following the initiatives. [Five steps to transparency] Credit to Macleod and his colleagues: there were no fewer than five welcome types of transparency in this project itself. These embody a gradual trend in which the public release of research results is moving farther away from the traditional form of a single, wrap-up publication. [::] First, the authors published a formal research protocol in a peer-reviewed journal [...]. Such publications are a mechanism, already established in clinical and other interventions research, by which authors ensure that their research is well designed. [...]
[::] Second, the authors posted the final draft paper describing their conclusions on a preprint server before submission
[::] Third and fourth, the group released the data-analysis plan and the analysis code before data collection was completed. [...]
[::] Fifth, the complete data set was publicly deposited on Figshare [...]
[] This is an example of the research process being disaggregated, publicly, into its components: peer-reviewed research design, a preprint of outcomes that invites community responses, the release of code and data, and final publication. Such a practice allows greater access to the thinking behind a project. It also provides an opportunity to directly distribute credit to the authors for their efforts on the various components. [...]},
journal = {Nature},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14439938,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,open-data,open-science,research-management,transparency},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14439938},
number = {7673}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"TWXt4Bfv3qdZAjNiS","bibbaseid":"nature-stepstowardstransparencyinresearchpublishing-2017","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Nature"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Steps towards Transparency in Research Publishing","author":[{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Nature"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2017","month":"September","volume":"549","pages":"431","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/549431a","abstract":"As research and editorial processes become increasingly open, scientists and editors need to be proactive but also alert to risks. [Excerpt] [...] The examples given here relate to initiatives by the Nature Research journals, some of which follow pioneering work by other publishers. [...] One such initiative is the checklist introduced by Nature and the Nature journals in 2013 for life-sciences submissions. [...] Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his colleagues [..] looked at the completeness of reporting in journals following the initiatives. [Five steps to transparency] Credit to Macleod and his colleagues: there were no fewer than five welcome types of transparency in this project itself. These embody a gradual trend in which the public release of research results is moving farther away from the traditional form of a single, wrap-up publication. [::] First, the authors published a formal research protocol in a peer-reviewed journal [...]. Such publications are a mechanism, already established in clinical and other interventions research, by which authors ensure that their research is well designed. [...] [::] Second, the authors posted the final draft paper describing their conclusions on a preprint server before submission [::] Third and fourth, the group released the data-analysis plan and the analysis code before data collection was completed. [...] [::] Fifth, the complete data set was publicly deposited on Figshare [...] [] This is an example of the research process being disaggregated, publicly, into its components: peer-reviewed research design, a preprint of outcomes that invites community responses, the release of code and data, and final publication. Such a practice allows greater access to the thinking behind a project. It also provides an opportunity to directly distribute credit to the authors for their efforts on the various components. [...]","journal":"Nature","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14439938,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,open-data,open-science,research-management,transparency","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-14439938","number":"7673","bibtex":"@article{natureStepsTransparencyResearch2017,\n title = {Steps towards Transparency in Research Publishing},\n author = {{Nature}},\n year = {2017},\n month = sep,\n volume = {549},\n pages = {431},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/549431a},\n abstract = {As research and editorial processes become increasingly open, scientists and editors need to be proactive but also alert to risks.\n\n[Excerpt] [...] The examples given here relate to initiatives by the Nature Research journals, some of which follow pioneering work by other publishers. [...] One such initiative is the checklist introduced by Nature and the Nature journals in 2013 for life-sciences submissions. [...]\n\nMalcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his colleagues [..] looked at the completeness of reporting in journals following the initiatives. [Five steps to transparency] Credit to Macleod and his colleagues: there were no fewer than five welcome types of transparency in this project itself. These embody a gradual trend in which the public release of research results is moving farther away from the traditional form of a single, wrap-up publication. [::] First, the authors published a formal research protocol in a peer-reviewed journal [...]. Such publications are a mechanism, already established in clinical and other interventions research, by which authors ensure that their research is well designed. [...]\n\n[::] Second, the authors posted the final draft paper describing their conclusions on a preprint server before submission\n\n[::] Third and fourth, the group released the data-analysis plan and the analysis code before data collection was completed. [...] \n\n[::] Fifth, the complete data set was publicly deposited on Figshare [...]\n\n[] This is an example of the research process being disaggregated, publicly, into its components: peer-reviewed research design, a preprint of outcomes that invites community responses, the release of code and data, and final publication. Such a practice allows greater access to the thinking behind a project. It also provides an opportunity to directly distribute credit to the authors for their efforts on the various components. [...]},\n journal = {Nature},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14439938,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,free-science-metrics,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,open-data,open-science,research-management,transparency},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14439938},\n number = {7673}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Nature"],"key":"natureStepsTransparencyResearch2017","id":"natureStepsTransparencyResearch2017","bibbaseid":"nature-stepstowardstransparencyinresearchpublishing-2017","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14439938","~to-add-doi-URL","check-list","free-science-metrics","free-scientific-knowledge","free-scientific-software","free-software","open-data","open-science","research-management","transparency"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","creationDate":"2020-07-03T22:46:25.134Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14439938","~to-add-doi-url","check-list","free-science-metrics","free-scientific-knowledge","free-scientific-software","free-software","open-data","open-science","research-management","transparency"],"search_terms":["steps","towards","transparency","research","publishing","nature"],"title":"Steps towards Transparency in Research Publishing","year":2017,"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}