Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42557573›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026

TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.

Sean Grant, Katherine S Corker, David Mellor, Suzanne L K Stewart, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Aidan G Cashin, Malgorzata Lagisz, David Moher, Daniel Umpierre, Virginia Barbour and 10 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improving science will require more than just training.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Editorial: Harmonization and Publication of the 2025 Updates of the CONSORT and SPIRIT Statements for Clinical Trials.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    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

20 authors.

Sean GrantCollege of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States. spgrant@uoregon.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7775-3022
Katherine S CorkerASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7971-1678
David MellorCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3125-5888
Suzanne L K StewartDivision of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2152-0091
Evan Mayo-WilsonUNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-2459
Aidan G CashinSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-7912
Malgorzata LagiszFaculty of Science - Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-6127
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Methodological and Implementation Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206
Daniel UmpierreHospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6953-0163
Virginia BarbourFaculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2358-2440
Stuart BuckGood Science Project, Roswell, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8111-3239
Gary S CollinsDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-2316
Haley F HazlettDeclaration on Research Assessment, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9937-435X
Iain HrynaszkiewiczPublic Library of Science (PLOS), Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9673-5559
Carole J LeeDepartment of Philosophy and Center for an Informed Public, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5323-9205
Timothy H ParkerDepartment of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2995-5284
Melissa L RethlefsenHealth Sciences Library & Informatics Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5322-9368
Elaine ToomeyCentre for Health Research Methodology, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5941-0838
Brian A NosekCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-5476
TOP Advisory Board

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransparency and openness are core scientific values that enable independent verification of reported research results. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, first published in 2015 (TOP 2015), provided a flexible framework for journals to design and implement publication standards promoting these values. Over the past decade, widespread use of TOP 2015 contributed to valuable evidence and feedback for refinement. MAIN TEXT: The TOP Advisory Board undertook a comprehensive update of TOP 2015 that went into effect in 2025 (TOP 2025). The update introduces an explicit conceptual framework clarifying its primary objective: improving the verifiability of empirical research claims. Standards are reorganized into three categories (Research Practices, Verification Practices, and Verification Studies) that resolve conceptual and structural limitations of TOP 2015. Research Practices include seven discrete practices implemented in three ways: Disclosed, Shared and Cited, and Certified. Verification Practices introduce standards for computational reproducibility and results transparency, while Verification Studies enumerate empirical research designs and publication formats that support verification of results. Language now centers on researchers and studies (rather than journals) to facilitate adoption by funders, research organizations, preprint servers, evidence curators, and other interest-holders. These changes promote flexible implementation and contextual tailoring.

conclusionsTOP 2025 retains the core strengths of TOP 2015 while addressing feedback from a decade of implementation and advances in open science. Rather than a universal mandate, it provides a shared, adaptable framework to coordinate the design, implementation, and communication of open policies across interest-holders.

Indexed as

Open scienceReplicationReproducibilityResearch transparencyTOP GuidelinesVerification

Identifiers

PMID42557573
PMCPMC13439764

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.