Adoption of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies: a cross-sectional study.
Elaine Toomey, Rory Coyne, Christina Derksen, Sean P Grant, Christopher M Jones, Marta Kijowska, Ilona McNeill, Felix Naughton, Aoife O'Mahony, Emma Norris
{"title":"Adoption of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Elaine Toomey, Rory Coyne, Christina Derksen, Sean P Grant, Christopher M Jones, Marta Kijowska, Ilona McNeill, Felix Naughton, Aoife O'Mahony, Emma Norris","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2025.2516010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientific journals play a crucial role in promoting open science. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines identify a range of standards that journals can adopt to promote the verifiability of the research they publish. We evaluated the adoption of TOP standards within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies, as this had not yet been systematically assessed. In a cross-sectional study on 19 health psychology and behavioural medicine journals, eight raters evaluated TOP standard adoption by these journals using the TRUST journal policy evaluation tool. Out of a total possible score of 29, journal scores ranged from 1 to 13 (median = 6). Standards related to use of reporting guidelines and data transparency were adopted the most, whereas standards related to pre-registration of study analysis plans and citation of code were adopted the least. TOP guidelines have to-date been poorly adopted within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies. There are several relatively straightforward opportunities for improvement, such as expanding policies around research data to also consider code and materials, and reducing ambiguity of wording. However, other improvements may require a collaborative approach involving all research stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2516010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Scientific journals play a crucial role in promoting open science. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines identify a range of standards that journals can adopt to promote the verifiability of the research they publish. We evaluated the adoption of TOP standards within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies, as this had not yet been systematically assessed. In a cross-sectional study on 19 health psychology and behavioural medicine journals, eight raters evaluated TOP standard adoption by these journals using the TRUST journal policy evaluation tool. Out of a total possible score of 29, journal scores ranged from 1 to 13 (median = 6). Standards related to use of reporting guidelines and data transparency were adopted the most, whereas standards related to pre-registration of study analysis plans and citation of code were adopted the least. TOP guidelines have to-date been poorly adopted within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies. There are several relatively straightforward opportunities for improvement, such as expanding policies around research data to also consider code and materials, and reducing ambiguity of wording. However, other improvements may require a collaborative approach involving all research stakeholders.
期刊介绍:
The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.