Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

Abstract

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

“…The role of preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted their importance in a public health emergency, and now with their continued use, it is important to understand how preprints contribute to the open research agenda. (7)(8)(9) However, the acceptability and use of preprints by some in the research community, can lead to hesitancy or resistance from researchers to submit their research to a preprint server. (10,11) Funding organisations have different policy statements about how and where preprints are accepted as part of the application process.…”

“…(27) These cautionary measures also extend to the use of preprints by clinicians and policymakers, especially if the study involves medications, vaccines or medical devices. The results could have a negative impact on the treatment of patients (including public health and safety) (7,8,21,27,28,30,41,43,(45)(46)(47)(48)52) and result in the spreading of disinformation and distrust of research. (19,33)…”

“…(54) So, the notion of low quality would not be expected from those using preprints to disseminate their research findings. (7,18,50,54,66) Addressing the challenges of publication models "Despite the drawbacks and deadly consequences, there is little doubt that preprint publishing is here to stay. The question is how science will handle it.…”

“…(46,55,(72)(73)(74) Evidence from the articles included in the review have shown that preprints are becoming recognised as part of the dissemination publication process in the wider open research initiative, but to varying degrees based on clinical relevance. (7,27,41) Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki (2019) conducted a review of preprint policies from 14 publishers and found that in 2017 64% of publishers had a preprint policy in place but by February 2018 this had increased to 78%. (39) Further advancements have been seen by eLife, showing that preprints can work alongside peer reviewed publications by adopting a 'publish, then review' model replacing the traditional 'review, then publish' model.…”

Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action

“…Consequently, the credibility of scientific findings is decreasing, potentially leading to cynicism or reputational damage to the research community [ 16 , 17 ]. Addressing the reproducibility crisis is not only one step towards restoring the public’s trust in scientific research, but also a necessary foundation for future research, as well as guiding evidence-based public-health initiatives and policies [ 18 ], facilitating translation and implementation of research findings [ 19 , 20 ], and accelerating scientific discovery [ 21 ].…”