Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise

Objective:  Research on Open Science practices in Health  Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify  research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5  prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health  Psychology. Methods and measures: An international Delphi consensus study  was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health  Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS)  suggested research question priorities to create a ‘long-list’ of  items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance  of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own  additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received  feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked  their top five research questions (Phase 3). Results:  The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1.  ‘To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised  in Health Psychology?’, 2. ‘How can we maximise the usefulness  of Open Data and Open Code resources?’, 3. ‘How can Open Data  be increased within Health Psychology?’, 4. ‘What interventions  are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health  Psychology?’ and 5. ‘How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?’. Conclusion:  Funding and resources should prioritise the research  questions identified here. </p

Feasibility of an audit and feedback intervention to facilitate journal policy change towards greater promotion of transparency and openness in sports science research

Objectives: To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy  change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy  evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research  practices. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards  of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support  for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored let‑ ter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefcients and  the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fdelity of intervention delivery and qualitative  feedback were used to determine feasibility. Results: The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored  feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0–27) was 2.05 (1.99), refecting low engagement with trans‑ parent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1)=0.68  (95% CI 0.55–0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability. Conclusion: Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and  open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a  means to facilitate change in journal policies </p