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

  1. Salvador-Oliván, José Antonio 1
  2. Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo 1
  3. Arquero-Avilés, Rosario 2
  1. 1 Departamento de Ciencias de la Documentación e Historia de la Ciencia. Facultad de Medicina. Universidad de Zaragoza
  2. 2 Departamento de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. Facultad de Ciencias de la Documentación. Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Journal:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 46

Issue: 3

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2023.3.1981 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista española de documentación científica

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 that might help to improve the reproducible research within the field.

Bibliographic References

  • Abadal, E. (2021). Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar. Arbor, 197(799), a588.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452-454.
  • Bolli, R. (2015). Reflections on the Irreproducibility of Scientific Papers. Circulation Research, 117(8), 665-666.
  • Center for Open Science. (2021). Open 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 Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, y World Association of Medical Editors. (2018). Principios de Transparencia y Mejores Prácticas en Publicaciones Académicas. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Freese, J., y Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in Social Science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 147-165.
  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Writing Empirical Articles: Transparency, Reproducibility, Clarity, and Memorability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 403-414.
  • Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., y Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). What does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine, 8(341), 341ps12.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hernon, P., y Schwartz, C. (2002). The Word “Research:” Having to Live with a Misunderstanding. Library and Information Science Research, 24(3), 207-208.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Markowetz, F. (2015). Five Selfish Reasons to Work Reproducibly. Genome Biology, 16(1), 1-4.
  • 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.
  • McNutt, M. (2014). Journals Unite for Reproducibility. Science, 346(6210), 679-679.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Mullane, K., y Williams, M. (2017). Enhancing Reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives Underline Core Challenges. Biochemical Pharmacology, 138, 7-18.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Sayre, F., y Riegelman, A. (2018). The Reproducibility Crisis and Academic Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 79(1), 2-9.
  • 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. 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.
Data source: Dialnet