The promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Learned Publishing Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1002/leap.1616
Chris Fradkin, Rogério Mugnaini
{"title":"The promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain","authors":"Chris Fradkin,&nbsp;Rogério Mugnaini","doi":"10.1002/leap.1616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. Four hundred articles were coded for the inclusion of data availability statements, conflict of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, DOI, ORCID, and continuous publishing. Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review. These findings reveal reasonably strong implementation of secondary open science measures (e.g., DOI, ORCID, conflict of interest and funding source disclosure) among the sample, but weaker implementation of primary measures (e.g., open data, open materials, replication studies and open peer review). The implications of these findings are considered and suggestions are made to bolster the adoption of open science measures among Ibero-American scientific journals.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1616","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. Four hundred articles were coded for the inclusion of data availability statements, conflict of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, DOI, ORCID, and continuous publishing. Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review. These findings reveal reasonably strong implementation of secondary open science measures (e.g., DOI, ORCID, conflict of interest and funding source disclosure) among the sample, but weaker implementation of primary measures (e.g., open data, open materials, replication studies and open peer review). The implications of these findings are considered and suggestions are made to bolster the adoption of open science measures among Ibero-American scientific journals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在巴西、墨西哥、葡萄牙和西班牙的优秀期刊中推广和实施开放科学措施
本研究对巴西、墨西哥、葡萄牙和西班牙的优秀期刊推广和实施开放科学措施的情况进行了实证研究。研究人员从期刊网站上收集了与数据共享、材料共享、预注册、开放同行评审以及考虑预印本和复制研究相关的期刊政策。对 400 篇文章进行了编码,以确定是否包含数据可用性声明、利益冲突披露、资金披露、DOI、ORCID 和连续出版。分析发现,巴西期刊对开放科学措施的推广程度高于葡萄牙期刊,国际期刊对开放科学措施的推广程度高于国内期刊。分析发现,巴西期刊实施开放科学措施的比例高于葡萄牙和墨西哥期刊。40 种期刊中有 1 种鼓励对研究进行预注册;没有一种期刊鼓励复制研究,也没有一种期刊实施开放式同行评审。这些发现表明,样本中二级开放科学措施(如 DOI、ORCID、利益冲突和资金来源披露)的实施力度相当大,但一级措施(如开放数据、开放材料、复制研究和开放同行评审)的实施力度较弱。本文探讨了这些发现的影响,并就如何促进伊比利亚-美洲科学期刊采用开放科学措施提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Purchase and publish: Early career researchers and open access publishing costs Issue Information The promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain The stock characters in the editorial boards of journals run by predatory publishers Exploring named-entity recognition techniques for academic books
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1