Open Synthesis: On the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Haddaway, Neal R ^a,b  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Open research; Openness; Reliability; Reproducibility crisis; Transparent

Indexed keywords

EID: 85057312971     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-018-0140-4     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Centre for Open Science. The Centre for Open Science 2018. https://cos.io/. Accessed 9 Oct 2018.
2. Fecher B, Friesike S. Open science: one term, five schools of thought. Opening science: Springer; 2014. p. 17-47.
3. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1. 0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2015.
4. CEE. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0. Johannesburg: Collaboration for Environmental Evidence; 2018.
5. Haddaway N, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(6):1596-605.
6. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
7. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):7.
8. Panic N, Leoncini E, De Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e83138.
9. Shokraneh F, Adams CE, Clarke M, Amato L, Bastian H, Beller E, Brassey J, Buchbinder R, Davoli M, Del Mar C. Why cochrane should prioritise sharing data. BMJ. 2018;362:k3229.
10. Kraker P, Leony D, Reinhardt W, Beham G. The case for an open science in technology enhanced learning. Int J Technol Enhanced Learn. 2011;3(6):643-54.
11. Open Knowledge International. The Open Definition 2018. https://opendefinition.org/. Accessed 9 Oct 2018.
12. SPARC. Setting the Default to Open: SPARC; 2018. https://sparcopen.org/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
13. Environmental Evidence. Submission guidelines: BMC; 2018. https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
14. Wolfenden L, Grimshaw J, Williams CM, Yoong SL. Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):185.
15. UCL IOE Press. Research for All: UCL IOE Press; 2018. https://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/research-for-all/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
16. Centre for Open Science. Open Science Framework: Centre for Open Science; 2018. https://osf.io/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
17. figshare. fishare - credit for all your research: figshare; 2018. https://figshare.com/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
18. DRYAD. Dryad Digital Repository - Dryad: Dryad; 2018. https://datadryad.org/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
19. Github. The world's leading software development platform. GitHub: GitHub, Inc; 2018. https://github.com/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
20. EBM DataLab. The Trails Tracker Project: EBM DataLab, University of Oxford; 2018. https://trialstracker.net/. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.
21. Lo B. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. JAMA. 2015;313(8):793-4.