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