Grant Sean, Mayo-Wilson Evan, Kianersi Sina, Naaman Kevin, Henschel Beate
HEDCO Institute for Evidence-Based Educational Practice, College of Education, University of Oregon, OR, 97403-1215, Eugene, USA.
Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Prev Sci. 2023 Oct;24(7):1275-1291. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01543-z. Epub 2023 May 13.
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.
循证政策利用干预研究为有关资源分配的重大决策提供信息。研究结果通常发表在同行评审期刊上。由于与封闭科学相关的有害研究做法很常见，期刊文章报告的假阳性和夸大的效应量比理想情况更多。期刊实施促进开放科学的标准——如透明度和开放性促进（TOP）指南——可以减少有害研究做法，并提高关于干预效果的研究证据的可信度。我们评估了339种同行评审期刊的TOP实施情况，这些期刊已被用于确定循证干预措施以用于政策制定和项目决策。TOP中的十项开放科学标准在大多数期刊的政策（对作者的说明）、程序（稿件提交系统）或实践（已发表文章）中均未得到实施。实施至少一项标准的期刊通常鼓励但不要求采用开放科学实践。我们讨论了期刊为何以及如何能够改进开放科学标准的实施，以保障循证政策。
