Prácticas de transparencia y reproducibilidad en artículos de revistas españolas de Biblioteconomía y Documentación

Salvador-Oliván, José-Antonio and Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo and Arquero-Avilés, Rosario Prácticas de transparencia y reproducibilidad en artículos de revistas españolas de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 2023, vol. 46, n. 3, e361. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
 Text
REDOC_2023.pdf
Download (292kB) | Preview

English abstract

Introduction and objective: Open Science emphasizes transparency and reproducibility. The aim of this study was to assess the presence of reproducibility and transparency indicators in the Spanish Library and Information Science journals. Methods: The Journal Citation Reports was searched for all spanish journals classified in the Information Science and Library Science category. Journals were then searched via Web of Science to identify publications from 2020 to March 1, 2022. From the reading of the full text of the articles, open access, the statement of funding sources and conflicts of interest, the availability of data, materials and analysis scripts were evaluated. Results and conclusions: All journals are open access, although one of them requires article processing charges. Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are infrequently used. In particular, researchers should make the materials, data, and analysis script publicly available. Further, they should be transparent about funding sources and financial conflicts of interest. Journal editors should recommend and encourage researchers to adhere to these practices might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

Spanish abstract

Introducción y objetivo: La transparencia y reproducibilidad son principios esenciales de la Ciencia Abierta. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la presencia de indicadores de reproducibilidad y transparencia en revistas españolas de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. Métodos: Se buscó en la base de datos Web of Science los artículos publicados en revistas españolas clasificadas en la categoría Information Science and Library Science en el Journal Citation Reports desde el año 2020 hasta el 1 de marzo de 2022. De la lectura del texto completo de los artículos, se evaluó el acceso abierto, la declaración de fuentes de financiación y conflictos de interés, la disponibilidad de datos, materiales y scripts. Resultados y conclusiones: Todas las revistas son de acceso abierto, si bien una de ellas requiere pagar por publicar en abierto. Nuestro estudio demuestra que las prácticas relacionadas con la transparencia y reproducibilidad son poco frecuentes. Los investigadores deben poner a disposición del público los datos, materiales y scripts, y ser transparentes sobre las fuentes de financiación y conflictos de interés. Los editores de revistas deben recomendar y animar a los investigadores a cumplir con estas prácticas que podrían ayudar a mejorar la investigación reproducible en la disciplina.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Transparency; reproducibility; open science; Library and Information Science; Transparencia; reproducibilidad; ciencia abierta; Biblioteconomía y Documentación; Spain; España;
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
C. Users, literacy and reading.
Depositing user: Jose Antonio Salvador-Oliván
Date deposited: 11 Jul 2023 08:07
Last modified: 11 Jul 2023 08:07
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/44544

References

Abadal, E. (2021). Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar. Arbor, 197 (799), a588. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799003

Adewumi, M. T., Vo, N., Tritz, D., Beaman, J., y Vassar, M. (2021). An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature. Addictive Behaviors, 112 (November 2019), 106560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106560

Anderson, J. M., Wright, B., Rauh, S., Tritz, D., Horn, J., Parker, I., Bergeron, D., Cook, S., y Vassar, M. (2021). Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature. Heart, 107 (2), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519

Ayris, P., y Ignat, T. (2018). Defining the role of libraries in the Open Science landscape: a reflection on current European practice. Open Information Science, 2 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2018-0001

Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533 (7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Bolli, R. (2015). Reflections on the Irreproducibility of Scientific Papers. Circulation Research, 117 (8), 665–666. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.307496

Center for Open Science. (2021). Science Badges enhance openness, a core value of scientific practice. Disponible en: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/badges [Fecha de consulta: 8/4/2022]

Center for Open Science. (2015). Guidelines for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) in Journal Policies and Practices “The TOP Guidelines” Version 1.0.1. Disponible en: https://osf.io/ud578/ [Fecha de consulta: 8/4/2022]

Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Acces Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, y World Association of Medical Editors. (2018). Principios de Transparencia y Mejores Prácticas en Publicaciones Académicas. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.13 [Fecha de consulta: 8/4/2022]

CSIC. (2021). Guía de buenas prácticas para la edición científico-académica. La publicación de revistas y libros en Editorial CSIC. Versión 3.1. Madrid:CSIC

De Filippo, D., Silva, P., y Borges, M. M. (2019). Caracterización de las publicaciones de España y Portugal sobre Open Science y análisis de su presencia en las redes sociales. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 42 (2), 235. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2019.2.1580

Figueiredo Filho, D., Lins, R., Domingos, A., Janz, N., y Silva, L. (2019). Seven Reasons Why: A User’s Guide to Transparency and Reproducibility. Brazilian Political Science Review, 13 (2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821201900020001

Fladie, I. A., Adewumi, T. M., Vo, N. H., Tritz, D. J., y Vassar, M. B. (2020). An Evaluation of Nephrology Literature for Transparency and Reproducibility Indicators: Cross-Sectional Review. Kidney International Reports, 5 (2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2019.11.001

Fladie, I., Evans, S., Checketts, J., Tritz, D., Norris, B., y Vassar, M. (2021). An evaluation of reproducibility and transparency indicators in orthopedic literature. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 14 (4), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12457

Freese, J., y Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in Social Science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43 (1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053450

Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Writing Empirical Articles: Transparency, Reproducibility, Clarity, and Memorability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918754485

Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., y Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). What does research reproducibility mean?. Science Translational Medicine, 8 (341), 341ps12. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027

Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., y Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17 (1), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979806

Hardwicke, T. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., Bendixen, T., Crüwell, S., y Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020). An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014–2017). Royal Society Open Science, 7 (2), 190806. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190806

Hernon, P., y Schwartz, C. (2002). The word “research:” Having to live with a misunderstanding. Library and Information Science Research, 24 (3), 207–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(02)00122-6

Johnson, B., Rauh, S., Tritz, D., Schiesel, M., y Vassar, M. (2021). Evaluating Reproducibility and Transparency in Emergency Medicine Publications. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 22(4), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2021.3.50078

Manh-Tung, H., y Quan-Hoang, V. (2019). The values and challenges of ‘openness’ in addressing the reproducibility crisis and regaining public trust in social sciences and humanities. European Science Editing, 45 (1), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2019.45.17021

Markowetz, F. (2015). Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biology, 16 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0850-7

McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., y otros. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ELife, 5 (JULY), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800

McNutt, M. (2014). Journals unite for reproducibility. Science, 346 (6210), 679–679. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1724

Mebane, C. A., Sumpter, J. P., Fairbrother, A., Augspurger, T. P., Canfield, T. J., Goodfellow, W. L., Guiney, P. D.,

LeHuray, A., Maltby, L., Mayfield, D. B., y otros. (2019). Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 15 (3), 320–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4119

Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., Glennerster, R., Green, D. P., Humphreys, M., Imbens, G., y otros. (2014). Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research. Science, 343 (6166), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317

Mullane, K., y Williams, M. (2017). Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges. Biochemical Pharmacology, 138, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2017.04.008

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie Du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ware, J. J., y otros. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Ngulube, P., y Ukwoma, S. C. (2021). Prevalence of methodological transparency in the use of mixed methods research in library and information science research in South Africa and Nigeria, 2009–2015. Library and Information Science Research, 43 (4), 101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101124

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., y otros. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348 (6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., y Fridsma, D. B. (2007). Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE, 2 (3), e308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

PLOS ONE. (2022). Disclosure of Funding Sources. Disponible en: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/disclosure-of-funding-sources#loc-funding-statement [Fecha de consulta: 8/4/2022]

Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., Martone, M. E., Bergstrom, H. C., Bespalov, A., y Graf, C. (2019). Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Cancer Reports, 2 (1), e1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1150

Salvador-Oliván, J. A., Marco-Cuenca, G., y Arquero-Avilés, R. (2021). Evaluación de la investigación con encuestas en artículos publicados en revistas del área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 44 (2), e295. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2021.2.1774

Sayre, F., y Riegelman, A. (2018). The Reproducibility Crisis and Academic Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 79 (1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.2

Szomszor, M. (2021). Introducing the Journal Citation Indicator: A new, field-normalized measurement of journal citation impact. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/tkkpupxz [Fecha de consulta: 6/6/2022]

The National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2020). Enhancing Scientific Reproducibility in Biomedical Research Through Transparent Reporting: Proceedings of a Workshop. The National Academies Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.17226/25627 [Fecha de consulta: 8/4/2022]

Vicente-Saez, R., y Martínez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88 (June 2017), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS