Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor quantifies the extent to which journals adopt TOP in their policies, but there is no validated instrument to assess TOP implementation. Moreover, raters...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kianersi S.
Other Authors: Mahidol University
Format: Article
Published: 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82264
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Mahidol University
id th-mahidol.82264
record_format dspace
spelling th-mahidol.822642023-05-19T14:56:08Z Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices Kianersi S. Mahidol University Psychology The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor quantifies the extent to which journals adopt TOP in their policies, but there is no validated instrument to assess TOP implementation. Moreover, raters might assess the same policies differently. Instruments with objective questions are needed to assess TOP implementation reliably. In this study, we examined the interrater reliability and agreement of three new instruments for assessing TOP implementation in journal policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript-submission systems), and practices (journal articles). Independent raters used these instruments to assess 339 journals from the behavioral, social, and health sciences. We calculated interrater agreement (IRA) and interrater reliability (IRR) for each of 10 TOP standards and for each question in our instruments (13 policy questions, 26 procedure questions, 14 practice questions). IRA was high for each standard in TOP; however, IRA might have been high by chance because most standards were not implemented by most journals. No standard had “excellent” IRR. Three standards had “good,” one had “moderate,” and six had “poor” IRR. Likewise, IRA was high for most instrument questions, and IRR was moderate or worse for 62%, 54%, and 43% of policy, procedure, and practice questions, respectively. Although results might be explained by limitations in our process, instruments, and team, we are unaware of better methods for assessing TOP implementation. Clarifying distinctions among different levels of implementation for each TOP standard might improve its implementation and assessment (study protocol: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00112-8). 2023-05-19T07:56:08Z 2023-05-19T07:56:08Z 2023-01-01 Article Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Vol.6 No.1 (2023) 10.1177/25152459221149735 25152467 25152459 2-s2.0-85152087550 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82264 SCOPUS
institution Mahidol University
building Mahidol University Library
continent Asia
country Thailand
Thailand
content_provider Mahidol University Library
collection Mahidol University Institutional Repository
topic Psychology
spellingShingle Psychology
Kianersi S.
Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
description The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor quantifies the extent to which journals adopt TOP in their policies, but there is no validated instrument to assess TOP implementation. Moreover, raters might assess the same policies differently. Instruments with objective questions are needed to assess TOP implementation reliably. In this study, we examined the interrater reliability and agreement of three new instruments for assessing TOP implementation in journal policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript-submission systems), and practices (journal articles). Independent raters used these instruments to assess 339 journals from the behavioral, social, and health sciences. We calculated interrater agreement (IRA) and interrater reliability (IRR) for each of 10 TOP standards and for each question in our instruments (13 policy questions, 26 procedure questions, 14 practice questions). IRA was high for each standard in TOP; however, IRA might have been high by chance because most standards were not implemented by most journals. No standard had “excellent” IRR. Three standards had “good,” one had “moderate,” and six had “poor” IRR. Likewise, IRA was high for most instrument questions, and IRR was moderate or worse for 62%, 54%, and 43% of policy, procedure, and practice questions, respectively. Although results might be explained by limitations in our process, instruments, and team, we are unaware of better methods for assessing TOP implementation. Clarifying distinctions among different levels of implementation for each TOP standard might improve its implementation and assessment (study protocol: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00112-8).
author2 Mahidol University
author_facet Mahidol University
Kianersi S.
format Article
author Kianersi S.
author_sort Kianersi S.
title Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
title_short Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
title_full Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
title_fullStr Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: Reliability of Instruments to Assess Journal Policies, Procedures, and Practices
title_sort evaluating implementation of the transparency and openness promotion guidelines: reliability of instruments to assess journal policies, procedures, and practices
publishDate 2023
url https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82264
_version_ 1781415556948164608