Transparency and Openness in High Impact Scientific Publishing: Development of Web-based Assessment Tool (TOSP Index)
Keywords:
Transparency and Openness in High Impact Scientific Publishing: Development of Web-based Assessment Tool (TOSP Index)Abstract
Scientific publication often refers to tackling the real-world problem. In the context of social sciences, scientific publication explains a phenomenon and provides contributing factors that need attention. However, the contributors of this scientific publication, the academicians, lecturers, or professors often have significant issues in publishing their research papers in reputable journals. The literature has confirmed that one of the proven and significant issues is author’s transparency and openness in writing. To this end, this project developed a web-based self-assessment tool to allow authors to feasibly evaluate their transparency and openness in publishing scientific articles. In total, 8 important constructs were determined and empirically proven to have significant influence on transparency and openness through surveys with more than 300 authors. This tool would calculate the total score and provide meaningful suggestions to authors to increase their chances of getting their articles published in reputable journal, boost citation index, and improve global visibility.
References
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methodology (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-22911-2
Chaleplioglou, A., & Koulouris, A. (2023). Preprint paper platforms in the academic scholarly communication environment. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211058908
Damian, E., Meuleman, B., & van Oorschot, W. (2022). Transparency and replication in cross-national survey research: Identification of problems and possible solutions. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(2), 499– 526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119843142
Durante, P. G. C. (2022). Strengthening collaborative research practices in academia: Factors, challenges, and strategies. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 80(4), 531–546. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.531
Fecher, B., Friesike, S., & Hebing, M. (2015). What drives academic data sharing? PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118053. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053
Ferguson, J., Littman, R., Christensen, G., Paluck, E. L., Swanson, N., Wang, Z., Miguel, E., Birke, D., & Pezzuto, J. H. (2023). Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 5080. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape.PLOS Biology, 19(4), e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
Gend, T. van, & Zuiderwijk, A. (2023). Open research data: A case study into institutional and infrastructural arrangements to stimulate open research data sharing and reuse.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(3), 782– 797. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221101200
Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in the Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
Hardwicke, T. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., Bendixen, T., Crüwell, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020). An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014–2017). Royal Society Open Science, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190806
Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA, 287(21), 2786–2790. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
Kirkham, J. J., Penfold, N. C., Murphy, F., Boutron, I., Ioannidis, J. P., Polka, J., & Moher, D. (2020). Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting. BMJ Open, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen- 2020-041849
Kodua-Ntim, K., & Fombad, M. C. (2020). Strategies for the use of open access institutional repositories at universities in Ghana. Library Management, 41(6–7), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-02-2020-0023
Lin, Z., Ma, Q., Huang, X., Wu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Pervasive failure to report properties of visual stimuli in experimental research in psychology and neuroscience: Two metascientific studies. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hy58r
Martinez, L. (2021). Openness, a must for the research system. Orvium. https://blog.orvium.io/openness-research-data-science/
McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557–2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., Glennerster, R., Green, D. P., Humphreys, M., Imbens, G., Laitin, D., Madon, T., Nelson, L., Nosek, B. A., Petersen, M., Sedlmayr, R., Simmons, J. P., Simonsohn, U., & Van Der Laan, M. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343(6166), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317
Milić, P., Veljković, N., & Stoimenov, L. (2022). Using OpenGovB Transparency Indicator to evaluate national open government data. Sustainability, 14(3), 1403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031407
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. S. (2012). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132– 161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. S. (2012). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132– 161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie Du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1– 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., ... Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422– 1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
Pękacka-Falkowska, K., Raj, D., & Węglorz, J. (2024). Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research: Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes’ (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of Anatome medullae spinalis. Anatomical Sciences Education, 17(5), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2435
Pruschak, G., & Hopp, C. (2022). And the credit goes to ... - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0267312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267312
Razlan, N. M., Samsuddin, S. F., & Abrizah, A. (2024). Embracing transparency and openness in scholarly publishing: Insights from the Malaysian social sciences researchers. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 29(3), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol29no3.2
Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2020). Open Access uptake by universities worldwide. PeerJ, 2020(7). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9410
Rooyen, S. van, Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. W. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Online), 341(7782), 1088. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
Schneider, J. (2024). Sorry we’re open, come in we’re closed: different profiles in the perceived applicability of open science practices to completed research projects. Royal Society Open Science, 11(1), 230595. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230595
Sever, R., Roeder, T., Hindle, S., Sussman, L., Black, K.-J., Argentine, J., Manos, W., & Inglis, J. R. (2019). bioRxiv: The preprint server for biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/833400
Spitschan, M., Schmidt, M. H., & Blume, C. (2021). Principles of open, transparent and reproducible science in author guidelines of sleep research and chronobiology journals. Wellcome Open Research, 5, 172. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16111.2
Vale, R. D., & Hyman, A. A. (2016). Priority of discovery in the life sciences. eLife, 5, e16931. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16931
Wang, P., & Tahamtan, I. (2017). The state‐of‐the‐art of open peer review: Early adopters.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 819–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401139
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Noor Masliana Razlan, Mohd Akmal Faiz Osman, Mohamad Rahimi Mohamad Rosman, Ali Fauzi Ahmad Khan, Samsulfarid Samsuddin, Abrizah Abdullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors of MJII retain copyright to the content of the articles.
The content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 which allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, republished, or otherwise re-used for any purpose, including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed without any restriction.
Authors Rights
The Journal grants you the following non-exclusive rights, subject to giving propoer acknowledgement to the original journal. The authors may:
(i) to reprint or reproduce the contribution, in whole or in part, in any publication of your interest.
(ii) to use material for teaching purposes; including availability of the matarial in academic course.
(iii) to post a copy of the contribution on your personal or institutional web server, provided that the server is non-commercial and there are no charges for access, and
(iv) to deposit a copy of the contribution in a non-commercial data repository maintained by an institution of which you are a member.
Author's Agreement
Author(s) guarantee the journal the following:
(i) that the contribution is their original work;
(ii) that it contains, no matter what, content that is defamatory or is otherwise unlawful or which invades rights of privacy or publicity or infringes any proprietary rights (including copyright);
(iii) that the contribution has not been published elsewhere in whole or in part and that no agreement to publish is outstanding other than this agreement. Author(s) agree to be responsible and hold the journal, its editors, staff and affiliate organizations harmless against any claims arising from or related to the breach or inaccuracy of any of the guarantees listed above.
Disclaimer
The editorial team of the MJII and the publication team of Academica Press Solutions share no responsibility regarding the views and opinions expressed by the authors.
The content published in MJII is Open Access and can be shared, adapted, reproduced, reprinted, after appropriate acknowledgment and giving due credit to the author(s) work.
