Open science (OS) awareness and skills are increasingly becoming an essential part of everyday scientific work as e.g., many journals require authors to share data. However, following an OS workflow can seem challenging at first. Thus, instructions by journals and other guidelines are important. But how comprehensive are they in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology (Ecol Evol)? To find this out, we reviewed 20 published OS guideline articles aimed for ecologists or evolutionary biologists, together with the data policies of 17 Ecol Evol journals to chart the current landscape of OS guidelines in the field, find potential gaps, identify field-specific barriers for OS and discuss solutions to overcome these challenges. We found that many of the guideline articles covered similar topics, despite being written for a narrow field or specific target audience. Likewise, many of the guideline articles mentioned similar obstacles that could hinder or postpone a transition to open data sharing. Thus, there could be a need for a more widely known, general OS guideline for Ecol Evol. Following the same guideline could also enhance the uniformity of the OS practices carried on in the field. However, some topics, like long-term experiments and physical samples, were mentioned surprisingly seldom, although they are typical issues in Ecol Evol. Of the journals, 15 out of 17 expected or at least encouraged data sharing either for all articles or under specific conditions, e.g. for registered reports and 10 of those required data sharing at the submission phase. The coverage of journal data policies varied greatly between journals, from practically non-existing to very extensive. As journals can contribute greatly by leading the way and making open data useful, we recommend that the publishers and journals would invest in clear and comprehensive data policies and instructions for authors.
Avoimen tieteen ymmärrys ja taitojen hallinta on yhä tärkeämpi osa tutkijan arkea, sillä esimerkiksi monet tieteelliset lehdet odottavat aineiston avointa jakamista. Avoimen tieteen työtapojen noudattaminen voi kuitenkin tuntua alkuun haastavalta, minkä vuoksi esimerkiksi tieteellisten lehtien ja muiden tahojen laatimat ohjeet ovat tärkeitä. Mutta kuinka kattavia ne ovat ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian alalla? Kävimme läpi 20 julkaistua ekologeille tai evoluutiobiologeille suunnattua avoimen tieteen ohjeistusta sekä 17 ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian tieteellisen lehden datakäytännöt, tarkoituksenamme kartoittaa alojen avoimen tieteen ohjeiden nykytilaa, löytää mahdollisia puutteita, tunnistaa alakohtaisia esteitä avoimen tieteen käytäntöjen toteutumiselle sekä keskustella ratkaisuista, joilla nämä haasteet voitaisiin ratkaista. Havaitsimme, että monet ohjeistukset käsittelivät samankaltaisia aiheita, vaikka ne oli tarkoitettu kapealle erityisalalle tai suunnattu hyvin rajoitetulle kohderyhmälle. Samoin monissa ohjeistuksissa mainittiin samankaltaisia aineistojen avoimen jakamisen hidastamista tai estämistä aiheuttavia haasteita. Toiset aiheet, kuten pitkäaikaiskokeet ja fyysiset näytteet, sen sijaan mainittiin yllättävän harvoin, vaikka niissä on tyypillisiä ekologian ja evoluutiobiologian alojen haasteita. Tieteellisistä lehdistä 15:ssä 17:sta vaadittiin tai vähintään kannustettiin jakamaan aineisto avoimesti joko kaikkien artikkelien osalta tai tietyin edellytyksin, esim. rekisteröityjen tutkimusraporttien osalta. Lisäksi 10 näistä lehdistä edellytti aineiston avointa jakamista jo submittointivaiheessa. Tieteellisten lehtien aineisto‐ohjeiden kattavuus vaihteli suuresti lehtien välillä, käytännössä olemattomasta hyvin laajaan. Koska tieteellisillä lehdillä on suuri vaikutusvalta avoimen tieteen käytäntöjen edistämiseen, suosittelemme kustantajia ja lehtiä panostamaan selkeisiin ja kattaviin aineistolinjauksiin ja ohjeistuksiin.

Respirometry is an important tool for understanding whole-animal energy and water balance in relation to the environment. Consequently, the growing number of studies using respirometry over the last decade warrants reliable reporting and data sharing for effective dissemination and research synthesis. We provide a checklist guideline on five key sections to facilitate the transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of respirometry studies: 1) materials, set up, plumbing, 2) subject conditions/maintenance, 3) measurement conditions, 4) data processing, and 5) data reporting and statistics, each with explanations and example studies. Transparency in reporting and data availability has benefits on multiple fronts. Authors can use this checklist to design and report on their study, and reviewers and editors can use the checklist to assess the reporting quality of the manuscripts they review. Improved standards for reporting will enhance the value of primary studies and will greatly facilitate the ability to carry out higher quality research syntheses to address ecological and evolutionary theories.

The recently released draft South African Ethics in Health Research Guidelines: Principles, Processes and Structures (Draft Guidelines) by the National Health Research Ethics Council recognize open data and provide guiding principles for this in the context of health research in South Africa. While its inclusion is a positive development, there is room for improvement. Although the Draft Guidelines leverage the Draft National Policy on Data and Cloud, it lacks incorporation of other relevant government policies, notably the Draft National Open Science Policy, and fails to sufficiently detail the principles of open science and open access. This limited scope and lack of comprehensive definition and detailed guidance present challenges for researchers in conducting ethical and responsible health research in South Africa. It constrains the Draft Guidelines from fully aligning with national imperatives and from fostering African-centric approaches. To address these issues, it is recommended that the Draft Guidelines integrate broader policies and principles, enhance clarity through comprehensive definitions, provide detailed guidance on open access, and promote African-centric approaches. Implementing these solutions will strengthen the Draft Guidelines, aligning them with national visions of open science, and thereby harnessing the full potential of South Africa\'s diverse scientific community in advancing health research.

N-of-1 trials are multiple crossover trials done over time within a single person; they can also be done with a series of individuals. Their focus on the individual as the unit of analysis maintains statistical power while accommodating greater differences between patients than most standard clinical trials. This makes them particularly useful in rare diseases, while also being applicable across many health conditions and populations. Best practices recommend the use of reporting guidelines to publish research in a standardized and transparent fashion. N-of-1 trials have the SPIRIT extension for N-of-1 protocols (SPENT) and the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT). Open science is a recent movement focused on making scientific knowledge fully available to anyone, increasing collaboration, and sharing of scientific efforts. Open science goals increase research transparency, rigor, and reproducibility, and reduce research waste. Many organizations and articles focus on specific aspects of open science, for example, open access publishing. Throughout the trajectory of research (idea, development, running a trial, analysis, publication, dissemination, knowledge translation/reflection), many open science ideals are addressed by the individual-focused nature of N-of-1 trials, including issues such as patient perspectives in research development, personalization, and publications, enhanced equity from the broader inclusion criteria possible, and easier remote trials options. However, N-of-1 trials also help us understand areas of caution, such as monitoring of post hoc analyses and the nuances of confidentiality for rare diseases in open data sharing. The N-of-1 reporting guidelines encourage rigor and transparency of N-of-1 considerations for key aspects of the research trajectory.

Research in the last decade has expressed considerable optimism about the clinical potential of psychedelics for the treatment of mental disorders. This optimism is reflected in an increase in research papers, investments by pharmaceutical companies, patents, media coverage, as well as political and legislative changes. However, psychedelic science is facing serious challenges that threaten the validity of core findings and raise doubt regarding clinical efficacy and safety. In this paper, we introduce the 10 most pressing challenges, grouped into easy, moderate, and hard problems. We show how these problems threaten internal validity (treatment effects are due to factors unrelated to the treatment), external validity (lack of generalizability), construct validity (unclear working mechanism), or statistical conclusion validity (conclusions do not follow from the data and methods). These problems tend to co-occur in psychedelic studies, limiting conclusions that can be drawn about the safety and efficacy of psychedelic therapy. We provide a roadmap for tackling these challenges and share a checklist that researchers, journalists, funders, policymakers, and other stakeholders can use to assess the quality of psychedelic science. Addressing today\'s problems is necessary to find out whether the optimism regarding the therapeutic potential of psychedelics has been warranted and to avoid history repeating itself.

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide a framework to help journals develop open science policies. Theories of behaviour change can guide understanding of why journals do (not) implement open science policies and the development of interventions to improve these policies. In this study, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework to survey 88 journal editors on their capability, opportunity and motivation to implement TOP. Likert-scale questions assessed editor support for TOP, and enablers and barriers to implementing TOP. A qualitative question asked editors to provide reflections on their ratings. Most participating editors supported adopting TOP at their journal (71%) and perceived other editors in their discipline to support adopting TOP (57%). Most editors (93%) agreed their roles include maintaining policies that reflect current best practices. However, most editors (74%) did not see implementing TOP as a high priority compared with other editorial responsibilities. Qualitative responses expressed structural barriers to implementing TOP (e.g. lack of time, resources and authority to implement changes) and varying support for TOP depending on study type, open science standard, and level of implementation. We discuss how these findings could inform the development of theoretically guided interventions to increase open science policies, procedures and practices.

Opening data promises to improve research rigour and democratize knowledge production. But it also presents practical, theoretical, and ethical considerations for qualitative researchers in particular. Discussion about open data in qualitative social psychology predates the replication crisis. However, the nuances of this ongoing discussion have not been translated into current journal guidelines on open data. In this article, we summarize ongoing debates about open data from qualitative perspectives, and through a content analysis of 261 journals we establish the state of current journal policies for open data in the domain of social psychology. We critically discuss how current common expectations for open data may not be adequate for establishing qualitative rigour, can introduce ethical challenges, and may place those who wish to use qualitative approaches at a disadvantage in peer review and publication processes. We advise that future open data guidelines should aim to reflect the nuance of arguments surrounding data sharing in qualitative research, and move away from a universal \"one-size-fits-all\" approach to data sharing. This article outlines the past, present, and the potential future of open data guidelines in social-psychological journals. We conclude by offering recommendations for how journals might more inclusively consider the use of open data in qualitative methods, whilst recognizing and allowing space for the diverse perspectives, needs, and contexts of all forms of social-psychological research.

The proliferation of approaches for analyzing accelerometer data using raw acceleration or novel analytic approaches like machine learning (\'novel methods\') outpaces their implementation in practice. This may be due to lack of accessibility, either because authors do not provide their developed models or because these models are difficult to find when included as supplementary material. Additionally, when access to a model is provided, authors may not include example data or instructions on how to use the model. This further hinders use by other researchers, particularly those who are not experts in statistics or writing computer code.Objective: We created a repository of novel methods of analyzing accelerometer data for the estimation of energy expenditure and/or physical activity intensity and a framework and reporting guidelines to guide future work.Approach: Methods were identified from a recent scoping review. Available code, models, sample data, and instructions were compiled or created.Main Results: Sixty-three methods are hosted in the repository, in preschoolers (n = 6), children/adolescents (n = 20), and adults (n = 42), using hip (n = 45), wrist (n = 25), thigh (n = 4), chest (n = 4), ankle (n = 6), other (n = 4), or a combination of monitor wear locations (n = 9). Fifteen models are implemented in R, while 48 are provided as cut-points, equations, or decision trees.Significance: The developed tools should facilitate the use and development of novel methods for analyzing accelerometer data, thus improving data harmonization and consistency across studies. Future advances may involve including models that authors did not link to the original published article or those which identify activity type.

Photoacoustic imaging (PAI) is an emerging modality that has shown promise for improving patient management in a range of applications. Unfortunately, the current lack of uniformity in PAI data formats compromises inter-user data exchange and comparison, which impedes: technological progress; effective research collaboration; and efforts to deliver multi-centre clinical trials. To overcome this challenge, the International Photoacoustic Standardisation Consortium (IPASC) has established a data format with a defined consensus metadata structure and developed an open-source software application programming interface (API) to enable conversion from proprietary file formats into the IPASC format. The format is based on Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) and designed to store photoacoustic raw time series data. Internal quality control mechanisms are included to ensure completeness and consistency of the converted data. By unifying the variety of proprietary data and metadata definitions into a consensus format, IPASC hopes to facilitate the exchange and comparison of PAI data.

暂无摘要。