临床前证据综合促进开放科学

Colette Bilynsky
{"title":"临床前证据综合促进开放科学","authors":"Colette Bilynsky","doi":"10.38126/jspg230202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence synthesis methodology, particularly preclinical evidence synthesis reviews, provides substantial benefits by reducing research waste, enhancing the quality of research, and providing comprehensive and objective overviews of specific fields. These reviews also allow for the contribution of citizen scientists, who represent an important facet of open science. Recent policy changes by the Biden-Harris Administration require that researchers receiving federal funding immediately make their publications and data available to the public without an embargo, highlighting the importance placed upon the open science principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Despite this, the following assessment highlights two challenges for evidence synthesis reviews that are at odds with open science principles: (1) the lack of funding available for evidence synthesis reviews, particularly preclinical reviews, despite their demonstrated value and (2) the slow and expensive traditional publication model. I recommend allocating funding for preclinical evidence synthesis reviews as they are beneficial to both the researchers conducting the review and the field that is being reviewed. I also recommend supporting publication platforms that employ the quick release of preprints with a transparent peer review process and/or creating a federally funded and run publication platform characterized by open access and minimal publication costs.","PeriodicalId":222224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"84 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preclinical Evidence Synthesis Facilitates Open Science\",\"authors\":\"Colette Bilynsky\",\"doi\":\"10.38126/jspg230202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evidence synthesis methodology, particularly preclinical evidence synthesis reviews, provides substantial benefits by reducing research waste, enhancing the quality of research, and providing comprehensive and objective overviews of specific fields. These reviews also allow for the contribution of citizen scientists, who represent an important facet of open science. Recent policy changes by the Biden-Harris Administration require that researchers receiving federal funding immediately make their publications and data available to the public without an embargo, highlighting the importance placed upon the open science principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Despite this, the following assessment highlights two challenges for evidence synthesis reviews that are at odds with open science principles: (1) the lack of funding available for evidence synthesis reviews, particularly preclinical reviews, despite their demonstrated value and (2) the slow and expensive traditional publication model. I recommend allocating funding for preclinical evidence synthesis reviews as they are beneficial to both the researchers conducting the review and the field that is being reviewed. I also recommend supporting publication platforms that employ the quick release of preprints with a transparent peer review process and/or creating a federally funded and run publication platform characterized by open access and minimal publication costs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Science Policy & Governance\",\"volume\":\"84 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Science Policy & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg230202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg230202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

证据综合方法,尤其是临床前证据综合综述,通过减少研究浪费、提高研究质量以及对特定领域进行全面客观的概述,带来了巨大的益处。这些综述还允许公民科学家做出贡献,他们代表了开放科学的一个重要方面。拜登-哈里斯政府(Biden-Harris Administration)最近对政策进行了修改,要求接受联邦资助的研究人员立即向公众提供其出版物和数据,而不实行封锁,这凸显了对开放科学原则--透明度、可复制性和可获取性--的重视。尽管如此,以下评估强调了证据综合审查所面临的两个与开放科学原则相悖的挑战:(1) 尽管证据综述(尤其是临床前综述)的价值已得到证明,但其缺乏资金支持;(2) 传统出版模式既缓慢又昂贵。我建议为临床前证据综述分配资金,因为这对进行综述的研究人员和被综述的领域都有好处。我还建议支持采用透明的同行评审流程快速发布预印本的出版平台,以及/或创建一个由联邦政府资助和运营的出版平台,其特点是开放存取和最低出版成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Preclinical Evidence Synthesis Facilitates Open Science
Evidence synthesis methodology, particularly preclinical evidence synthesis reviews, provides substantial benefits by reducing research waste, enhancing the quality of research, and providing comprehensive and objective overviews of specific fields. These reviews also allow for the contribution of citizen scientists, who represent an important facet of open science. Recent policy changes by the Biden-Harris Administration require that researchers receiving federal funding immediately make their publications and data available to the public without an embargo, highlighting the importance placed upon the open science principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Despite this, the following assessment highlights two challenges for evidence synthesis reviews that are at odds with open science principles: (1) the lack of funding available for evidence synthesis reviews, particularly preclinical reviews, despite their demonstrated value and (2) the slow and expensive traditional publication model. I recommend allocating funding for preclinical evidence synthesis reviews as they are beneficial to both the researchers conducting the review and the field that is being reviewed. I also recommend supporting publication platforms that employ the quick release of preprints with a transparent peer review process and/or creating a federally funded and run publication platform characterized by open access and minimal publication costs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cover Memo: Volume 23, Issue 2, Special Issue on Civic Science for Transformative Policy Solutions to Societal Challenges Left out of the Room Where it Happens: Barriers to Serving in Senior Congressional Staff Roles May Limit “Representative” Science Policymaking Community-Driven Civic Science: Relationship Building to Prioritize Public Needs Rethinking Civic Science Funding to Better Support Community Engagement From Intent to Impact: Enabling Transdisciplinary Research for Responsible Scientific Stewardship
×
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