Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36756061›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors.

Kevin Naaman, Sean Grant, Sina Kianersi, Lauren Supplee, Beate Henschel, Evan Mayo-Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Kevin NaamanSchool of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0683-3639
Sean GrantHEDCO Institute for Evidence-Based Educational Practice, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
Sina KianersiSchool of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Lauren SuppleeWilliam T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Beate HenschelSchool of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0708-5660
Evan Mayo-WilsonSchool of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6126-2459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.

Indexed as

behaviour changejournal editorsopen sciencereproducibilityTop Guidelinestransparency

Identifiers

PMID36756061
PMCPMC9890101

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.