bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.06.26.172940

Transparency and open science reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals

Spitschan, M.·Schmidt, M. H.·Blume, C.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

"Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science principles. The adoption of open science principles at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but uptake of these principles differ from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep and chronobiology research encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. To this end, we scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 28 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. This instrument rates the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Across the 28 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25th, 75th percentile] 2.5 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 28). This suggests an opportunity for sleep and chronobiology journals to further support the recent developments by implementing transparency and openness principles in their guidelines and making adherence to them mandatory.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Spitschan, M., Schmidt, M. H., Blume, C.. 2020-06-26. Transparency and open science reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.26.172940

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

Development of a Bayesian network for probabilistic risk assessment of pesticides

Conventional environmental risk assessment of chemicals is based on a calculated risk quotient, representing the ratio of exposure to effects of the chemical, in combination with assessment factors to account for uncertainty. Probabilistic risk assessment approaches can offer more transparency, by using probability distributions for exposure and/or effects to account for variability and uncertainty. In this study, a probabilistic approach using Bayesian network (BN) modelling is explored as an alternative to traditional risk calculation. BNs can serve as meta-models that link information from several sources and offer a transparent way of incorporating the required characterization of uncertainty for environmental risk assessment. To this end, a BN has been developed and parameterised for the pesticides azoxystrobin, metribuzin, and imidacloprid. We illustrate the development from deterministic (traditional) risk calculation, via intermediate versions, to fully probabilistic risk characterisation using azoxystrobin as an example. We also demonstrate seasonal risk calculation for the three pesticides.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

The Visual Dictionary of Antimicrobial Stewardship, Infection Control, and Institutional Surveillance

ObjectivesData and data visualization are integral parts of (clinical) decision-making in general and stewardship (antimicrobial stewardship, infection control, and institutional surveillance) in particular. However, systematic research on the use of data visualization in stewardship is lacking. This study aimed at filling this gap by creating a visual dictionary of stewardship through an assessment of data visualization in stewardship research. MethodsA random sample of 150 data visualizations from published research articles on stewardship were assessed. The visualization vocabulary (content) and design space (design elements) were combined to create a visual dictionary. Additionally, visualization errors, chart junk, and quality were assessed to identify problems in current visualizations and to provide improvement recommendations. ResultsDespite a heterogeneous use of data visualization, distinct combinations of graphical elements to reflect stewardship data were identified. In general, bar (n=54; 36.0%) and line charts (n=42; 28.1%) were preferred visualization types. Visualization problems comprised colour scheme mismatches, double y-axis, hidden data points through overlaps, and chart junk. Recommendations were derived that can help to clarify visual communication, improve colour use for grouping/stratifying, improve the display of magnitude, and match visualizations to scientific standards. ConclusionsResults of this study can be used to guide data visualization creators in designing visualizations that fit the data and visual habits of the stewardship target audience. Additionally, the results can provide the basis to further expand the visual dictionary of stewardship towards more effective visualizations that improve data insights, knowledge, and clinical decision-making.

scientific communication and education↗