Up front and open, shrouded in secrecy, or somewhere in between? A Meta Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research

By Garrett S. Bullock, Patrick Ward, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Stefan Kluzek, Tom Hughes, Charles Hillman, Brian R. Waterman, Kerry Danelson, Kaitlin Henry, Emily Barr, Kelsey Healey, Anu M. Räisänen, Christina Gomez, Garrett Fernandez, Jakob Wolf, Kristen F. Nicholson, Tim Sell, Ryan Zerega, Paula Dhiman, Richard D. Riley, Gary S Collins.
Jan 1, 0001

Edit this page

Open Access Open Code Study Protocol Reporting Guidelines

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top five sports medicine journals from 01 May 2022 and 01 October 2022.

DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review

LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top-five sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate ((1) British Journal of Sports Medicine, (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science, (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine, (4) Medicine Science Sport and Exercise, and (5) Sports Medicine-Open). Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, grey literature, or animal or cadaver models.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and patient and public involvement (PPI).

RESULTS: 243 studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (Range: 0-8; IQR: 2). 234 studies (96%, 95% CI: 94-99%) provided an author conflict of interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62-73%) reported funding. 21 studies (9%, 95% CI: 5-12%) provided open access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8-16%) were pre-registered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-5%) reported patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans.

Link to resource: https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2023.12016

Type of resources: Reading

Education level(s): College / Upper Division (Undergraduates), Graduate / Professional, Career /Technical, Adult Education

Primary user(s): Student, Teacher

Subject area(s): Applied Science, Life Science, Social Science

Language(s): English