RESUMEN
Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science-such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines-could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals' policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.
RESUMEN
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly "Final Research Reports" of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI's Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. METHODS: Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers' comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. RESULTS: We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). DISCUSSION: Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder's peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.
RESUMEN
Background: Incidents of vector-borne disease have recently tripled in the United States. Chikungunya disease is a particularly common disease in the Caribbean, posing a threat to international tourists. However, the relationship between psychological variables derived from the protection motivation theory (PMT), and adoption of protective behaviors against the disease, is uncertain. This study sought to identify the psychological predictors of travelers' protective health behaviors, specifically (1) appropriate clothing use, and (2) indoor spatial repellent use. Methods: An online, retrospective survey of U.S. international travelers to Caribbean destinations measured the five constructs of the PMT in the context of Chikungunya disease: Perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, perceived response efficacy, perceived self-efficacy, and knowledge. Hierarchical logistic regression analyzed whether these five theoretical constructs predicted the two protective behaviors in respondents who met study criteria (n = 184). Results: Results suggest that the interaction between chikungunya knowledge and perceived chikungunya severity predicts both appropriate clothing use (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95, CI: 1.18-3.25, P =0.010) and indoor spatial repellent use (OR: 1.55, CI: 1.05-2.29, P =0.029). In the cases of appropriate clothing use, the interaction between perceived chikungunya severity and perceived vulnerability was also a significant predictor (OR: 9.67, CI:1.23-75.80, P =0.031). Additionally, indoor spatial repellent use was also predicted by the interaction of chikungunya knowledge and perceived vulnerability (OR: 1.88, CI:1.18-3.02, P =0.009). Conclusion : Two-pronged educational approaches may be most efficacious in increasing protective health behaviors. Such efforts could reduce incidents of chikungunya disease and other vectorborne diseases in travel destinations featuring high exposure risks.
