Adoption of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines within health psychology and behavioural medicine journal policies: a cross-sectional study.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
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.

在健康心理学和行为医学期刊政策中采用促进透明度和开放性准则:一项横断面研究。
科学期刊在促进开放科学方面发挥着至关重要的作用。促进透明度和开放性(TOP)指南确定了期刊可以采用的一系列标准,以促进其发表的研究的可验证性。我们对健康心理学和行为医学期刊政策中TOP标准的采用进行了评估,因为这还没有得到系统的评估。在一项针对19种健康心理学和行为医学期刊的横断面研究中,8名评分员使用TRUST期刊政策评估工具评估了这些期刊对TOP标准的采用情况。在可能的总分29分中,期刊评分范围从1到13(中位数= 6)。与使用报告指南和数据透明度相关的标准被采用的最多,而与研究分析计划的预注册和代码引用相关的标准被采用的最少。迄今为止,卫生心理学和行为医学期刊政策很少采用TOP指南。有几个相对直接的改进机会,例如扩大围绕研究数据的政策,将代码和材料也考虑在内,以及减少措辞的模糊性。然而,其他改进可能需要所有研究利益相关者参与的合作方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信