Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: A cross-sectional study

Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise

OBJECTIVE

Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology.

METHODS AND MEASURES

An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3).

RESULTS

The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'.

CONCLUSION

Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.

Improving medical research in the United Kingdom

Poor quality medical research causes serious harms by misleading healthcare professionals and policymakers, decreasing trust in science and medicine, and wasting public funds. Here we outline underlying problems including insufficient transparency, dysfunctional incentives, and reporting biases. We make the following recommendations to address these problems: Journals and funders should ensure authors fulfil their obligation to share detailed study protocols, analytical code, and (as far as possible) research data. Funders and journals should incentivise uptake of registered reports and establish funding pathways which integrate evaluation of funding proposals with initial peer review of registered reports. A mandatory national register of interests for all those who are involved in medical research in the UK should be established, with an expectation that individuals maintain the accuracy of their declarations and regularly update them. Funders and institutions should stop using metrics such as citations and journal's impact factor to assess research and researchers and instead evaluate based on quality, reproducibility, and societal value. Employers and non-academic training programmes for health professionals (clinicians hired for patient care, not to do research) should not select based on number of research publications. Promotions based on publication should be restricted to those hired to do research.