Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233041›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2024

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

Kelly D Cobey, Mohsen Alayche, Sara Saba, Nana Yaa Barnes, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Emilio Alarcón, Benjamin Hibbert, David Moher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kelly D CobeyUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada kcobey@ottawaheart.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-2797-1686
Mohsen AlaycheDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sara SabaUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nana Yaa BarnesUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sanam EbrahimzadehOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Emilio AlarcónUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Benjamin HibbertUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David MoherUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAMayo Clinic · USOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOpen science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science.

methodsWe identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis.

results198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science.

conclusionsIt is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Indexed as

CardiologyBiomedical ResearchHumansPublishingEducation, MedicalEthics, MedicalResearch DesignTranslational Medical Research

Identifiers

PMID38233041
PMCPMC10806507
OpenAlexW4390955751

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.