Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078479›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2021

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

Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant, Lauren Supplee, Sina Kianersi, Afsah Amin, Alex DeHaven, David Mellor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Article
  11. Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Evan Mayo-Wilson *Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA. emayowil@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-2459
Sean Grant *Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lauren SuppleeChild Trends, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sina KianersiIndiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Afsah AminIndiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Alex DeHavenCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
David MellorCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsWe 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/ .

Indexed as

Open scienceReproducibilityResearch transparencyTOP factorTOP guidelines

Identifiers

PMID34078479
PMCPMC8173977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.