Browsing by Subject "Open science"
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations(Springer, 2021) Mayo-Wilson, Evan; Grant, Sean; Supplee, Lauren H.; Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthClearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based,” clearinghouses review intervention evaluations using published standards of evidence that focus primarily on internal validity and causal inferences. Open science practices can improve trust in evidence from evaluations on the effectiveness of social interventions. Including open science practices in clearinghouse standards of evidence is one of many efforts that could increase confidence in designations of interventions as “evidence-based.” In this study, we examined the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses that review preventive interventions—an important and influential subset of all evidence clearinghouses. We found that seven consider at least one open science practice when evaluating interventions: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, material sharing, and citation standards. We provide a framework with specific recommendations to help federal and other evidence clearinghouses implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Our proposed “TOP Guidelines for Clearinghouses” includes reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could increase the trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making and support improvements throughout the evidence ecosystem.Item Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise(Taylor & Francis, 2022-10) Norris, Emma; Prescott, Amy; Noone, Chris; Green, James A.; Reynolds, James; Grant, Sean Patrick; Toomey, Elaine; Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthObjective Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology. Methods and measures An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a ‘long-list’ of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3). Results The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. ‘To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?’, 2. ‘How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?’, 3. ‘How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?’, 4. ‘What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?’ and 5. ‘How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?’. Conclusion Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.Item Feasibility of an Audit and Feedback Intervention to Facilitate Journal Policy Change Towards Greater Promotion of Transparency and Openness in Sports Science Research(Springer, 2022-08-02) Hansford, Harrison J.; Cashin, Aidan G.; Bagg , Matthew K.; Wewege, Michael A.; Ferraro , Michael C.; Kianersi , Sina; Mayo-Wilson , Evan; Grant, Sean P.; Toomey, Elaine; Skinner , Ian W.; McAuley , James H.; Lee, Hopin; Jones, Matthew D.; Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthObjectives To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility. Results The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0–27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability. Conclusion Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies.Item The Medical Library Association Data Services Competency: A Framework for Data Science and Open Science Skills Development(Medical Library Association, 2020-04) Federer, Lisa; Foster, Erin Diane; Glusker, Ann; Henderson, Margaret; Read, Kevin; Zhao, Shirley; Ruth Lilly Medical Library, School of MedicineIncreasingly, users of health and biomedical libraries need assistance with challenges they face in working with their own and others' data. Librarians have a unique opportunity to provide valuable support and assistance in data science and open science but may need to add to their expertise and skill set to have the most impact. This article describes the rationale for and development of the Medical Library Association Data Services Competency, which outlines a set of five key skills for data services and provides a course of study for gaining these skills.Item The case for open research in entomology: reducing harm, refining reproducibility and advancing insect science(Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2024) Cuff , Jordan P.; Barrett , Meghan; Gray , Helen; Fox , Charles; Watt , Allan; Aimé , Emilie1. Open research is an increasingly developed and crucial framework for the advancement of science and has seen successful adoption across a broad range of disciplines. Entomology has, however, been slow to adopt these practices compared to many adjacent fields despite ethical and practical imperatives to do so. 2. The grand challenges facing entomology in the 21st century require the synthesis of evidence at global scales, necessitating open sharing of data and research at a pace and scale incompatible with the slow adoption of open research practices. Open science also plays a vital role in fostering trust in research and maximizing use of research outputs, which is ethically crucial for reducing harms to insects. 3. We outline these imperatives and how open research practices can enhance entomological research across a range of contexts. We also highlight the holistic nature of open science across the full research lifecycle through several specific examples of open research practices, which can be adopted easily by individual entomologists. 4. We do, however, argue that the responsibility of promoting, integrating and encouraging open research is most crucially held by publishers, including scholarly societies, which have leveraged widespread adoption in adjacent fields. Entomology must advance quickly to become a leading discipline in the open research transition.Item The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): Rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment(Oxford University Press, 2021) Haendel, Melissa A.; Chute, Christopher G.; Bennett, Tellen D.; Eichmann, David A.; Guinney, Justin; Kibbe, Warren A.; Payne, Philip R. O.; Pfaff, Emily R.; Robinson, Peter N.; Saltz, Joel H.; Spratt, Heidi; Suver, Christine; Wilbanks, John; Wilcox, Adam B.; Williams, Andrew E.; Wu, Chunlei; Blacketer, Clair; Bradford, Robert L.; Cimino, James J.; Clark, Marshall; Colmenares, Evan W.; Francis, Patricia A.; Gabriel, Davera; Graves, Alexis; Hemadri, Raju; Hong, Stephanie S.; Hripscak, George; Jiao, Dazhi; Klann, Jeffrey G.; Kostka, Kristin; Lee, Adam M.; Lehmann, Harold P.; Lingrey, Lora; Miller, Robert T.; Morris, Michele; Murphy, Shawn N.; Natarajan, Karthik; Palchuk, Matvey B.; Sheikh, Usman; Solbrig, Harold; Visweswaran, Shyam; Walden, Anita; Walters, Kellie M.; Weber, Griffin M.; Zhang, Xiaohan Tanner; Zhu, Richard L.; Amor, Benjamin; Girvin, Andrew T.; Manna, Amin; Qureshi, Nabeel; Kurilla, Michael G.; Michael, Sam G.; Portilla, Lili M.; Rutter, Joni L.; Austin, Christopher P.; Gersing, Ken R.; Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and EngineeringObjective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses societal challenges that require expeditious data and knowledge sharing. Though organizational clinical data are abundant, these are largely inaccessible to outside researchers. Statistical, machine learning, and causal analyses are most successful with large-scale data beyond what is available in any given organization. Here, we introduce the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), an open science community focused on analyzing patient-level data from many centers. Materials and methods: The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program and scientific community created N3C to overcome technical, regulatory, policy, and governance barriers to sharing and harmonizing individual-level clinical data. We developed solutions to extract, aggregate, and harmonize data across organizations and data models, and created a secure data enclave to enable efficient, transparent, and reproducible collaborative analytics. Results: Organized in inclusive workstreams, we created legal agreements and governance for organizations and researchers; data extraction scripts to identify and ingest positive, negative, and possible COVID-19 cases; a data quality assurance and harmonization pipeline to create a single harmonized dataset; population of the secure data enclave with data, machine learning, and statistical analytics tools; dissemination mechanisms; and a synthetic data pilot to democratize data access. Conclusions: The N3C has demonstrated that a multisite collaborative learning health network can overcome barriers to rapidly build a scalable infrastructure incorporating multiorganizational clinical data for COVID-19 analytics. We expect this effort to save lives by enabling rapid collaboration among clinicians, researchers, and data scientists to identify treatments and specialized care and thereby reduce the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19.Item The Open Science Movement: Funders, Foundations, and Federal Regulations(SocArXiv, 2023) Herzog, Patricia SnellThe National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, and National Endowment for the Humanities are among a growing list of federal agencies issuing open science regulations. The NSF states that open data should be publicly available, fully accessible and usable, made available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes, and without restrictions placed upon use. Beyond federal agencies, philanthropic and nonprofit organizations are also engaged in perpetuating the movement. With funding from the John Templeton Foundation, the Center for Open Science established the Open Science Framework, and the Open Science of Religion project was launched to advance openness in the science of religion and spirituality. JTF is a founding member of the Open Research Funders Group, which is a partnership among 25 philanthropic organizations committed to open data, including: Gates, Lumina, Sloan, Zuckerberg, Arnold, and Johnson Foundations. Additionally, journals are increasingly required to comply with open data regulations. Yet, questions remain regarding the extent to which qualitative data can ethically be de-identified. The NIH supplemental states that indirect identifiers may pose particular challenges to inferences. Researchers question whether qualitative researchers are ready to share data (Mozersky et al. 2020; 2021). Guidelines and software applications exist to assist with technical aspects of the de-identification process, but broader questions remain regarding whether qualitative researchers can share data without violating the trust of their participants and uphold research ethics for confidentiality.Item Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science(Springer, 2022) Grant, Sean; Wendt, Kathleen E.; Leadbeater, Bonnie J.; Supplee, Lauren H.; Mayo-Wilson, Evan; Gardner, Frances; Bradshaw, Catherine P.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineThe field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.