IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i4p46-d986868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines across Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Inga Patarčić

    (Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, 13125 Berlin, Germany)

  • Jadranka Stojanovski

    (Department of Information Sciences, University of Zadar, 23000 Zadar, Croatia
    Ruđer Bošković Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

Journal policies continuously evolve to enable knowledge sharing and support reproducible science. However, that change happens within a certain framework. Eight modular standards with three levels of increasing stringency make Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines which can be used to evaluate to what extent and with which stringency journals promote open science. Guidelines define standards for data citation, transparency of data, material, code and design and analysis, replication, plan and study pre-registration, and two effective interventions: “Registered reports” and “Open science badges”, and levels of adoption summed up across standards define journal’s TOP Factor. In this paper, we analysed the status of adoption of TOP guidelines across two thousand journals reported in the TOP Factor metrics. We show that the majority of the journals’ policies align with at least one of the TOP’s standards, most likely “Data citation” (70%) followed by “Data transparency” (19%). Two-thirds of adoptions of TOP standard are of the stringency Level 1 (less stringent), whereas only 9% is of the stringency Level 3. Adoption of TOP standards differs across science disciplines and multidisciplinary journals (N = 1505) and journals from social sciences (N = 1077) show the greatest number of adoptions. Improvement of the measures that journals take to implement open science practices could be done: (1) discipline-specific, (2) journals that have not yet adopted TOP guidelines could do so, (3) the stringency of adoptions could be increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Inga Patarčić & Jadranka Stojanovski, 2022. "Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines across Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:46-:d:986868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/4/46/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/4/46/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    2. Antonella Lanati & Marinella Marzano & Caterina Manzari & Bruno Fosso & Graziano Pesole & Francesca De Leo, 2019. "Management at the service of research: ReOmicS, a quality management system for omics sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Joel Ferguson & Rebecca Littman & Garret Christensen & Elizabeth Levy Paluck & Nicholas Swanson & Zenan Wang & Edward Miguel & David Birke & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2023. "Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Rosenblatt, Lucas & Herman, Bernease & Holovenko, Anastasia & Lee, Wonkwon & Loftus, Joshua & McKinnie, Elizabeth & Rumezhak, Taras & Stadnik, Andrii & Howe, Bill & Stoyanovich, Julia, 2023. "Epistemic parity: reproducibility as an evaluation metric for differential privacy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Susanne Wieschowski & Svenja Biernot & Susanne Deutsch & Silke Glage & André Bleich & René Tolba & Daniel Strech, 2019. "Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-8, November.
    7. Shinichi Nakagawa & Edward R. Ivimey-Cook & Matthew J. Grainger & Rose E. O’Dea & Samantha Burke & Szymon M. Drobniak & Elliot Gould & Erin L. Macartney & April Robin Martinig & Kyle Morrison & Matthi, 2023. "Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, December.
    8. Paul J. Ferraro & J. Dustin Tracy, 2022. "A reassessment of the potential for loss-framed incentive contracts to increase productivity: a meta-analysis and a real-effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1441-1466, November.
    9. Brian M. Schilder & Alan E. Murphy & Nathan G. Skene, 2024. "rworkflows: automating reproducible practices for the R community," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Tim Hulsen, 2020. "Sharing Is Caring—Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    12. Lingjing Jiang & Niina Haiminen & Anna‐Paola Carrieri & Shi Huang & Yoshiki Vázquez‐Baeza & Laxmi Parida & Ho‐Cheol Kim & Austin D. Swafford & Rob Knight & Loki Natarajan, 2022. "Utilizing stability criteria in choosing feature selection methods yields reproducible results in microbiome data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1155-1167, September.
    13. Joshua Borycz & Robert Olendorf & Alison Specht & Bruce Grant & Kevin Crowston & Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Natalie M. Rice & Rachael Hu & Robert J. Sandusky, 2023. "Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Paul-Martin Luc & Simon Bauer & Julia Kowal, 2022. "Reproducible Production of Lithium-Ion Coin Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Cantone, Giulio Giacomo, 2023. "The multiversal methodology as a remedy of the replication crisis," MetaArXiv kuhmz, Center for Open Science.
    16. Ron S. Kenett & Abraham Rubinstein, 2021. "Generalizing research findings for enhanced reproducibility: an approach based on verbal alternative representations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4137-4151, May.
    17. Naudé, Wim, 2024. "Is the Scholarly Field of Entrepreneurship at Its End?," IZA Discussion Papers 16916, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Jinzhou Li & Marloes H. Maathuis, 2021. "GGM knockoff filter: False discovery rate control for Gaussian graphical models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(3), pages 534-558, July.
    19. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Tam-Tri Le & Hong-Kong To Nguyen & Manh-Toan Ho & Huyen T. Thanh Nguyen & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "Alice in Suicideland: Exploring the Suicidal Ideation Mechanism through the Sense of Connectedness and Help-Seeking Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-24, April.
    20. Pedro Mateu & Brooks Applegate & Chris L. Coryn, 2024. "Towards more credible conceptual replications under heteroscedasticity and unbalanced designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 723-751, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:46-:d:986868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.