Department of Physical Therapy, Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy Program, Bellin College, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Phys Ther. 2024 Jan 1;104(1). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzad133.
The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapist journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor (JIF).
Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapist journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their JIF was determined.
Thirty-five journals' author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0 to 8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. TOP factor scores were a significant predictor of JIF scores.
There is low implementation of the TOP standards by physical therapist journals. TOP factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for JIF scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists.
Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.
本研究旨在评估物理治疗师期刊通过遵守透明度和开放性促进（TOP）指南来支持开放科学研究实践的程度，并评估期刊评分与其各自的期刊影响因子（JIF）之间的关系。
通过 Scimago、映射研究、美国国家医学图书馆和期刊作者指南搜索，确定纳入的物理治疗师期刊。根据与数据、代码、研究材料、研究设计和分析、研究预注册和统计分析、复制以及开放科学徽章相关的 10 项标准（共 29 项）对期刊进行评分。确定期刊透明度和开放性评分与其 JIF 之间的关系。
35 本期刊的作者指南被分配了透明度和开放性因素评分。所有期刊的中位数（四分位距）评分为 29 分中的 3.00 分（所有期刊的评分范围为 0 至 8 分）。实施程度最高的 2 项标准是设计和分析透明度（报告指南）以及研究预注册。没有期刊报告代码透明度、材料透明度、复制和开放科学徽章。TOP 因素评分是 JIF 评分的重要预测指标。
物理治疗师期刊对 TOP 标准的实施程度较低。TOP 因素评分对 JIF 评分具有预测能力。期刊的政策必须改进，以使开放科学实践成为研究的标准。期刊处于一个有影响力的位置，可以引导实践，提高出版的严谨性，最终增强物理治疗师使用的循证信息。
透明、开放和可重复的研究将通过提高研究质量并增强对临床护理实施结果的信心，推动该专业向前发展。
