Publishers’ Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility

Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology

Volumn 257, Issue , 2020, Pages 319-348

  Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain ^a  

^a Public Library of Science ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data sharing; Open access; Open science; Peer review; Publishing; Reporting guidelines; Reproducible research; Research data; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CHECKLIST; DATA MINING; DATA QUALITY; METADATA; MISCONDUCT; MOTIVATION; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESPONSIBILITY; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SOFTWARE; SOUND; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PUBLISHING;

COMMUNICATION; DATA ACCURACY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85081091326     PISSN: 01712004     EISSN: 18650325     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/164_2019_290     Document Type: Chapter

References (103)

1. Allin K (2018) Research data: challenges and opportunities for Japanese researchers – Springer Nature survey data. https://figshare.com/articles/Research_data_challenges_and_opportunities_ for_Japanese_researchers-_Springer_Nature_survey_data/6328952/1
2. Announcement (2017) Towards greater reproducibility for life-sciences research in Nature. Nature 546:8
3. Anon J (2013) Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496:398–398
4. Astell M, Hrynaszkiewicz I, Grant R, Smith G, Salter J (2018) Have questions about research data? Ask the Springer Nature helpdesk. https://figshare.com/articles/Providing_advice:and_guid ance:on_research_data_a_look_at_the_Springer_Nature_Helpdesk/5890432
5. Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452–454
6. Barbui C (2016) Sharing all types of clinical data and harmonizing journal standards. BMC Med 14:63
7. Berghmans S et al (2017) Open Data: the researcher perspective – survey and case studies. https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/bwrnfb4bvh/1
8. Björk B-C (2015) Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 3:e981
9. Blohowiak BB (2013) Badges to acknowledge open practices. https://osf.io/tvyxz/files/?_ga=2. 252581578.297610246.1542300800-587952028.1539080384
10. Bucci EM (2018) Automatic detection of image manipulations in the biomedical literature. Cell Death Dis 9:400
11. Burton A et al (2017) The Scholix framework for interoperability in data-literature information exchange. D-Lib Mag 23:1
12. Butler D (2000) BioMed central boosted by editorial board. Nature 405:384
13. Callaghan S et al (2014) Guidelines on recommending data repositories as partners in publishing research data. Int J Digit Curation 9:152–163
14. Colavizza et al (2019) The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. https://arxiv. org/abs/1907.02565
15. Chan A-W et al (2017) Association of trial registration with reporting of primary outcomes in protocols and publications. JAMA 318:1709–1711
16. Cobo E et al (2007) Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2:e332
17. Cousijn H et al (2017) A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10. 1101/100784
18. Cousijn H et al (2018) A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers. Sci Data 5:180259
19. Dorch BF, Drachen TM, Ellegaard O (2015) The data sharing advantage in astrophysics. Proc Int Astron Union 11:172–175
20. Emerson GB et al (2010) Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 170:1934–1939
21. Eyding D et al (2010) Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 341:c4737
22. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:17028–17033
23. Ferguson AR, Nielson JL, Cragin MH, Bandrowski AE, Martone ME (2014) Big data from small data: data-sharing in the “long tail” of neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 17:1442–1447
24. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13:e1002165
25. Garza K, Fenner M (2018) Glad you asked: a snapshot of the current state of data citation. https://blog.datacite.org/citation-analysis-scholix-rda/
26. Giofrè D, Cumming G, Fresc L, Boedker I, Tressoldi P (2017) The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors’ reporting of statistics and use of open research practices. PLoS One 12: e0175583
27. Goldacre B et al (2018) Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. BMJ 362:k3218
28. Graf C (2018) How and why we’re making research data more open. Wiley, Hoboken. https://www. wiley.com/network/researchers/licensing-and-open-access/how-and-why-we-re-making-research-data-more-open
29. Grant R, Smith G, Hrynaszkiewicz I (2019) Assessing metadata and curation quality: a case study from the development of a third-party curation service at Springer Nature. BioRxiv. https://doi. org/10.1101/530691
30. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One 7:e44118
31. Hardwicke TE et al (2018) Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. R Soc Open Sci 5:180448
32. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Cockerill MJ (2012) Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals. BMC Res Notes 5:494
33. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Shintani Y (2014) Scientific Data: an open access and open data publication to facilitate reproducible research. J Inf Process Manag 57:629–640
34. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Busch S, Cockerill MJ (2013) Licensing the future: report on BioMed Central’s public consultation on open data in peer-reviewed journals. BMC Res Notes 6:318
35. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Li P, Edmunds SC (2014) In: Stodden V, Leisch F, Peng RD (eds) Implementing reproducible research. CRC Press, Boca Raton
36. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Khodiyar V, Hufton AL, Sansone S-A (2016) Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations. Res Integr Peer Rev 1:6
37. Hrynaszkiewicz I et al (2017a) Standardising and harmonising research data policy in scholarly publishing. Int J Digit Curation 12:65
38. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Simons N, Goudie S, Hussain A (2017b) Research Data Alliance Interest Group: data policy standardisation and implementation. https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/data-pol icy-standardisation-and-implementation
39. Hrynaszkiewicz et al (2019) Developing a research data policy framework for all journals and publishers. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8223365.v1
40. I4OC: initiative for open citations. https://i4oc.org/
41. Inchcoombe S (2017) The changing role of research publishing: a case study from Springer Nature. Insights 30:13–19
42. Ioannidis JPA et al (2009) Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat Genet 41:149–155
43. Johnson R, Focci M, Chiarelli A, Pinfield S, Jubb M (2017) Towards a competitive and sustainable open access publishing market in Europe: a study of the Open Access Market and Policy Environment. OpenAIRE, Brussels, p 77
44. Kidwell MC et al (2016) Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol 14:e1002456. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.1002456
45. Kirk R, Norton L (2019) Supporting data sharing. NPJ Breast Cancer 5:8
46. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L (2016) The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One 11:e0166387
47. Leonelli S (2016) Open data: curation is under-resourced. Nature 538:41
48. Lewis LM et al (2018) Replication study: transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc. Elife 7
49. Li T et al (2016) Review and publication of protocol submissions to trials – what have we learned in 10 years? Trials 18:34
50. Lin J (2018) Preprints growth rate ten times higher than journal articles. https://www.crossref.org/blog/preprints-growth-rate-ten-times-higher-than-journal-articles/
51. Luther J (2017) The stars are aligning for preprints – the scholarly kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen. sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints/
52. Macleod MR, The NPQIP Collaborative Group (2017) Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/187245
53. Markowetz F (2015) Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biol 16:274
54. McGauran N et al (2010) Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials 11:37
55. McNutt M (2014) Journals unite for reproducibility. Science 346:679
56. Michener WK (2015) Ten simple rules for creating a good data management plan. PLoS Comput Biol 11:e1004525
57. Munafò MR et al (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1:0021
58. Nature (2015) Ctrl alt share. Sci Data 2:150004
59. Nature (2017) Extending transparency to code. Nat Neurosci 20:761
60. Nature (2018) Checklists work to improve science. Nature 556:273–274
61. Naughton L, Kernohan D (2016) Making sense of journal research data policies. Insight 29:84–89
62. Nosek BA, Lakens D (2014) Registered reports. Soc Psychol 45:137–141
63. Nosek B et al (2014) Transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines. https://osf.io/xd6gr/?_ga=2.251468229.297610246.1542300800-587952028.1539080384
64. Nuijten MB et al (2017) Journal data sharing policies and statistical reporting inconsistencies in psychology. Collabra Psychol 3:31
65. Peng RD (2009) Reproducible research and biostatistics. Biostatistics 10:405–408
66. Percie du Sert N et al (2018) Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope. BMJ Open Sci 2:e000002
67. Pienta AM, Alter GC (2010) The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary research data. Russell. http://141.213.232.243/handle/2027.42/78307
68. Piwowar H (2013) Altmetrics: value all research products. Nature 493:159
69. Piwowar HA, Vision TJ (2013) Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1:e175
70. Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS One 2:e308
71. Polanin JR, Terzian M (2018) A data-sharing agreement helps to increase researchers’ willingness to share primary data: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 106:60–69
72. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:712
73. Rathi V et al (2012) Clinical trial data sharing among trialists: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ 345: e7570
74. Robertson M (2017) Who needs registered reports? BMC Biol 15:49
75. Rowhani-Farid A, Barnett AG (2016) Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study. BMJ Open 6:e011784
76. Rowhani-Farid A, Barnett AG (2018) Badges for sharing data and code at biostatistics: an observational study. [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Res 7:90
77. Rowhani-Farid A, Allen M, Barnett AG (2017) What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2:4
78. Savage CJ, Vickers AJ (2009) Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PLoS One 4:e7078
79. Schmidt B, Gemeinholzer B, Treloar A (2016) Open data in global environmental research: the Belmont forum’s open data survey. PLoS One 11:e0146695
80. Science D et al (2017) The state of open data report 2017. Digital Science, London
81. Scientific Data (2019) Scientific Data recommended repositories. https://figshare.com/articles/Scientific_Data_recommended_repositories_June_2015/1434640
82. SciGraph | For Researchers | Springer Nature. https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/scigraph
83. Shamseer L, Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF (2016) Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014. Trials 17:301
84. Shotton D (2013) Publishing: open citations. Nature 502:295–297
85. Simera I et al (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 8:24
86. Smith R (2010) Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 12(Suppl 4):S13
87. Smith G, Grant R, Hrynaszkiewicz I (2018) Quality and completeness scores for curated and non-curated datasets. https://figshare.com/articles/Quality_and_completeness_scores_for_ curated_and_non-curated_datasets/6200357
88. Springer Nature (2018) Springer Nature launches Open data badges pilot – Research in progress blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2018/10/08/springer-nature-launches-open-data-badges-pilot/
89. STM, ALPSP (2006) Databases, data sets, and data accessibility – views and practices of scholarly publishers. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2006_06_01_STM_ALPSP_Data_Statement.pdf
90. Stuart D et al (2018) Whitepaper: practical challenges for researchers in data sharing. https://figshare.com/articles/Whitepaper_Practical_challenges_for_researchers_in_data_sharing/5975011
91. Suber P (2012) Open access. MIT Press, Cambridge. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_sch_0001.pdf
92. Taichman DB et al (2017) Data sharing statements for clinical trials. BMJ 357:j2372
93. Teixeira da Silva JA (2015) Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. J Negat Results Biomed 14:12
94. Text and Data Mining | Springer Nature | For Researchers | Springer Nature. https://www. springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining
95. Text and Data Mining Policy – Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/text-and-data-mining
96. The NPQIP Collaborative Group (2019) Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting? BMJ Open Sci 3:e000035
97. UK Research and Innovation (2011) Common principles on data policy. https://www.ukri.org/funding/information-for-award-holders/data-policy/common-principles-on-data-policy/
98. Vanpaemel W, Vermorgen M, Deriemaecker L, Storms G (2015) Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm. Collabra 1
99. Vasilevsky NA, Minnier J, Haendel MA, Champieux RE (2017) Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark? PeerJ 5:e3208
100. Vines TH et al (2013) Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J 27:1304–1308
101. Whitlock MC, McPeek MA, Rausher MD, Rieseberg L, Moore AJ (2010) Data archiving. Am Nat 175:145–146
102. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D (2006) The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol 61:726–728
103. Wiley Open Science Researcher Survey (2016) https://figshare.com/articles/Wiley_Open_Science: Researcher_Survey_2016/4748332/2