The open science movement aims to make research and data accessible, transparent, and reproducible. However, to monitor progress and identify areas for improvement, we need a set of well-defined and operationalized open science practices. A recent paper titled "Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine" aimed to achieve consensus on a set of open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions.
The study was conducted using a modified three-round Delphi method and involved participants from different backgrounds, including research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. Participants completed an online survey in the first two rounds to evaluate potential open science practices. The third round involved virtual meetings where participants discussed and voted on items that had not reached a consensus.
The study's participants reached a consensus on 19 open science practices, including using preprints, open data and code sharing, transparent reporting, and adopting the FAIR data principles. The identified practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be useful in developing policies, educational programs, and interventions to promote open science practices.
We have also published two related papers in dental research. "Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis" assessed adherence to transparency practices such as data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration in articles published in dental journals. Our study found that data sharing and code sharing remain rare while adherence to transparency practices has improved over time. So, coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.
The second paper, "Dental Research Data Availability and Quality According to the FAIR Principles," evaluated the availability of open data in dental research and assessed compliance with the FAIR principles of shared dental research data. Our study found that only 1.5% of investigated articles shared data, and the quality of shared data according to the FAIR metrics was suboptimal. These results emphasize that the lack of data sharing and poor data quality can undermine the reproducibility of dental research and hinder the application of machine learning algorithms.
Together, these papers highlight the need for increased transparency and open science practices in biomedical and dental research. Adherence to transparency practices and the sharing of research data can lead to more reliable and impactful research, benefiting both the scientific community and the broader public.
Two summary tables of the result from the PLOS publication are:
Traditional open science practices
|1||Reporting trial registration status||Track compliance and reduce selective outcome reporting|
|2||Reporting open data statement||Track culture around data sharing and potential changes in tracking|
|3||Reporting proportion of open access articles||Track open access publication trends and timing|
|4||Reporting open code sharing statement||Track culture around code sharing and compliance with best practices|
|5||Reporting systematic review registration status||Reduce unnecessary duplication in reviews|
|6||Reporting trial result reporting in registry||Track compliance with reporting results within 1 year of study completion|
|7||Reporting materials sharing statement||Track culture around materials sharing and inform infrastructure needs|
|8||Reporting use of reporting guidelines||Track compliance with essential information checklists to improve publication quality|
|9||Reporting data citations||Monitor data reuse and study impact|
|10||Reporting trial results in manuscript-style publication||Track publication of registered trials and their impact|
|11||Reporting number of preprints||Track frequency of preprints produced at the institution|
|12||Reporting systematic review results in manuscript-style publication||Track publication of registered systematic reviews and their impact|
Broader transparency practices
|1||Reporting author contributions statement||Clarify diverse contributions and recognize individual skills|
|2||Reporting conflicts of interest statement||Ensure transparency and clarify potential conflicts|
|3||Reporting use of persistent identifiers||Foster collation and linkage of research outputs|
|4||Reporting ORCID identifiers||Track researcher-level outputs and inform iterations of open science dashboard|
|5||Reporting clear license for data/code/materials sharing||Ensure transparency and accessibility of research outputs|
|6||Reporting funding statements||Ensure transparency and provide linkage between funding and research outputs|
|7||Reporting open data/code/materials license||Track proportion of open licenses for research outputs|