Biology subjects

Cobey, K. D.

Publications and source records attributed to Cobey, K. D..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2025

Funders' expectations for open science in cardiovascular research: A Scoping review of the largest cardiovascular research funders

Open science practices, including data sharing, open access, and prospective study registration, have been increasingly recognized to improve transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in research, yet their uptake and implementation by cardiovascular research funders is unclear. We conducted a scoping review of publicly available policies, guidance, and grant instructions from 12 members of the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum to assess expectations, monitoring, and support for open science in cardiovascular research. We included 105 documents from 9 funders; no relevant documents were identified for 3 funders. Data sharing (75%) and open access (67%) were the most common mandates by funders, followed by prospective registration (50%). Requirements for other practices, including code sharing, use of reporting guidelines, preprints, and open peer review, were uncommon. Monitoring compliance was inconsistent, with many funders not specifying any mechanisms, even for widely required practices. Where available, support was most often provided through financial assistance, guidance, or infrastructure, particularly for open access, data sharing, and patient or public involvement. These findings suggest that while cardiovascular funders are engaging with open science, policies remain uneven in scope, monitoring, and support. Navigating the open science implementation gap in cardiovascular research will be essential to reap the benefits of transparency and innovation, only possible through the sharing of information and data.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research: a cross-sectional international survey

We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility, and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and e-mails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting replication studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was significant. The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a pressure to publish with 62% of participants indicating it always or very often contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researchers study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research; and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2023

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: an international cross-sectional survey

BackgroundOpen science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. MethodsWe identified the top 100 "Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine" subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding authors name and e-mail from all articles published in these journals between March 1, 2021 - March 1, 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. Results198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. DiscussionIt is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research communitys open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

scientific communication and education↗