The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has sparked an outflow of scientific research seeking to understand the virus, its spread, and best practices in prevention and treatment. If this international research effort is going to be as swift and effective as possible, it will need to rely on a principle of open science. When researchers share data, code, and software and generally make their work as transparent as possible, it allows other researchers to verify and expand upon their work. Furthermore, it allows public officials to make informed decisions. In this study, we analyzed 535 preprint articles related to COVID-19 for eight transparency criteria and recorded study location and funding information. We found that individual researchers have lined up to help during this crisis, quickly tackling important public health questions, often without funding or support from outside organizations. However, most authors could improve their data sharing and scientific reporting practices. The contrast between researchers' commitment to doing important research and their reporting practices reveals underlying weaknesses in the research community's reporting habits, but not necessarily their science.

A wide array of existing metrics quantifies a scientific paper's prominence or the author's prestige. Many who use these metrics make assumptions that higher citation counts or more public attention must indicate more reliable, better quality science. While current metrics offer valuable insight into scientific publications, they are an inadequate proxy for measuring the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of published research. Three essential elements to establishing trust in a work include: trust in the paper, trust in the author, and trust in the data. To address these elements in a systematic and automated way, we propose the ripetaScore as a direct measurement of a paper's research practices, professionalism, and reproducibility. Using a sample of our current corpus of academic papers, we demonstrate the ripetaScore's efficacy in determining the quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of an academic work. In this paper, we aim to provide a metric to evaluate scientific reporting quality in terms of transparency and trustworthiness of the research, professionalism, and reproducibility.

SUMMARYThe demand for agricultural production is becoming more challenging as climate change increases global temperature and the frequency of extreme weather events. This study examines the phenotypic variation of 149 accessions of Brachypodium distachyon under drought, heat, and the combination of stresses. Heat alone causes the largest amounts of tissue damage while the combination of stresses causes the largest decrease in biomass compared to other treatments. Notably, Bd21‐0, the reference line for B. distachyon, did not have robust growth under stress conditions, especially the heat and combined drought and heat treatments. The climate of origin was significantly associated with B. distachyon responses to the assessed stress conditions. Additionally, a GWAS found loci associated with changes in plant height and the amount of damaged tissue under stress. Some of these SNPs were closely located to genes known to be involved in responses to abiotic stresses and point to potential causative loci in plant stress response. However, SNPs found to be significantly associated with a response to heat or drought individually are not also significantly associated with the combination of stresses. This, with the phenotypic data, suggests that the effects of these abiotic stresses are not simply additive, and the responses to the combined stresses differ from drought and heat alone.