A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.

Despite the increase in the number of journals issuing data policies requiring authors to make data underlying reporting findings publicly available, authors do not always do so, and when they do, the data do not always meet standards of quality that allow others to verify or extend published results. This phenomenon suggests the need to consider the effectiveness of journal data policies to present and articulate transparency requirements, and how well they facilitate (or hinder) authors' ability to produce and provide access to data, code, and associated materials that meet quality standards for computational reproducibility. This article describes the results of a research study that examined the ability of journal-based data policies to: 1) effectively communicate transparency requirements to authors, and 2) enable authors to successfully meet policy requirements. To do this, we conducted a mixed-methods study that examined individual data policies alongside editors' and authors' interpretation of policy requirements to answer the following research questions. Survey responses from authors and editors along with results from a content analysis of data policies found discrepancies among editors' assertion of data policy requirements, authors' understanding of policy requirements, and the requirements stated in the policy language as written. We offer explanations for these discrepancies and offer recommendations for improving authors' understanding of policies and increasing the likelihood of policy compliance.

Referendum opposition to fluoridation and health literacy: a cross-sectional analysis conducted in three large US cities.

OBJECTIVE: To explore health literacy as a marker of voter confusion in order to understand the basis for public opposition to community water fluoridation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Conducted in three large US cities of San Antonio, Texas (602 voting precincts); Wichita, Kansas (171 voting precincts); and Portland, Oregon (132 voting precincts). Precinct-level voting data were compiled from community water fluoridation referendums conducted in San Antonio in 2002, Wichita in 2012 and Portland in 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Voter turnout expressed as a percentage of registered voters was 38% in San Antonio (n=2 92 811), 47% in Wichita (n=129 199) and 38% in Portland (n=164 301). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The dependent variable was the percentage of votes in favour of fluoridating drinking water. Precinct-level voting data were mapped to precinct scores of health literacy, and to US Census and American Community Survey characteristics of race/ethnicity, age, income and educational attainment. Multilevel regression with post-stratification predicted the precinct mean health literacy scores, with weights generated from the National Association of Adult Literacy health literacy survey, with item response theory computed scoring for health literacy. Predictive models on voter support of community water fluoridation were compared using robust linear regression to determine how precinct-level characteristics influenced voter support in order to determine whether health literacy explained more variance in voting preference than sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Precinct-level health literacy was positively associated with voter turnout, although sociodemographic characteristics were better predictors of turnout. Approximately 60% of voters opposed community water fluoridation in Wichita and Portland, whereas in San Antonio, a small majority (53%) voted in favour of it. Models suggest that a one SD increase in health literacy scores predicted a 12 percentage point increase support for community water fluoridation. CONCLUSION: Educational attainment and health literacy are modifiable characteristics associated with voting precincts' support for community water fluoridation.

Fluoridation advocacy in referenda where media coverage is balanced yet biased.

BACKGROUND: Despite supporting scientific evidence, community water fluoridation (CWF) often fails in public referenda. To understand why, the authors quantitatively analyzed text from news media coverage of CWF referenda. METHODS: The authors analyzed text from 234 articles covering 11 CWF referenda conducted in 3 US cities from 1956 through 2013. The authors used cluster analysis to identify each article's core rhetoric and classified it according to sentiment and tone. The authors used multilevel count regression models to measure the use of positive and negative words regarding CWF. RESULTS: Media coverage more closely resembled core rhetoric used by fluoridation opponents than the rhetoric used by fluoridation proponents. Despite the scientific evidence, the media reports were balanced in tone and sentiment for and against CWF. However, in articles emphasizing children, greater negative sentiment was associated with CWF rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Media coverage depicted an artificial balance of evidence and tone in favor of and against CWF. The focus on children was associated with more negative tone in cities where voters rejected CWF. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: When speaking to the media, advocates for CWF should emphasize benefits for children and use positive terms about dental health rather than negative terms about dental disease.