Abstract:Background: Transparency within biomedical research is essential for research integrity, credibility, and reproducibility. To increase adherence to optimal scientific practices and enhance transparency, we propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT) that will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal's operations and transparency policies. This study is part of a program of research to obtain user preferences to inform the proposed JTT. Here, we report on our consultation with clinicians and researchers. Methods: This mixed-methods study was conducted in two parts. The first part involved a cross-sectional survey conducted on a random sample of authors from biomedical journals. The survey asked clinicians and researchers about the inclusion of a series of potential scholarly metrics and user features in the proposed JTT. Quantitative survey items were summarized with descriptive statistics. Thematic content analysis was employed to analyze text-based responses. Subsequent focus groups used the survey responses to further explore the inclusion of items in the JTT. Items with less than 70% agreement were used to structure discussion points during these sessions. Participants voted on the use of user features and metrics to be considered within the journal tool after each discussion. Thematic content analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify the core themes discussed. Results: A total of 632 participants (5.5% response rate) took part in the survey. A collective total of 74.7% of respondents found it either 'occasionally', 'often', or 'almost always' difficult to determine if health information online is based on reliable research evidence. Twenty-two participants took part in the focus groups. Three user features and five journal tool metrics were major discussion points during these sessions. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in six themes. The use of registration was the only item to not meet the 70% threshold after both the survey and focus groups. Participants demonstrated low scholarly communication literacy when discussing tool metric suggestions. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the JTT would be valuable for both researchers and clinicians. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with researchers and clinicians.

New methods of treatment of severely injured sciatic nerve and spinal cord. An experimental study.

Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors

Rabbit serum amyloid a gene: cloning, characterization and sequence analysis.

A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool

Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit

How well are open science practices implemented in industrial and organizational psychology and management?

Promoting an open research culture

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools

Conformational transition behavior of amorphous polyethylene across the glass transition temperature.

Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study

The Foundation Model Transparency Index v1.1: May 2024

Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges

Nontargeted Analysis Study Reporting Tool: A Framework to Improve Research Transparency and Reproducibility

Investing in Open Science: Key Considerations for Funders

Commentary: Bridging and Reducing the Gaps Between Research and Practice: Pathways to Outcomes and the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation 2.0

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies

Open Science and Reform Practices in Organizational Behavior Research over Time (2011 to 2019)