Preclinical Evidence Synthesis Facilitates Open Science

Abstract

Evidence synthesis methodology, particularly preclinical evidence synthesis reviews, provides substantial benefits by reducing research waste, enhancing the quality of research, and providing comprehensive and objective overviews of specific fields. These reviews also allow for the contribution of citizen scientists, who represent an important facet of open science. Recent policy changes by the Biden-Harris Administration require that researchers receiving federal funding immediately make their publications and data available to the public without an embargo, highlighting the importance placed upon the open science principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Despite this, the following assessment highlights two challenges for evidence synthesis reviews that are at odds with open science principles: (1) the lack of funding available for evidence synthesis reviews, particularly preclinical reviews, despite their demonstrated value and (2) the slow and expensive traditional publication model. I recommend allocating funding for preclinical evidence synthesis reviews as they are beneficial to both the researchers conducting the review and the field that is being reviewed. I also recommend supporting publication platforms that employ the quick release of preprints and a transparent peer review process and/or creating a federally funded and run publication platform characterized by open access and minimal publication costs.