Embracing transparency and openness in scholarly publishing: Insights from the Malaysian social sciences researchers
Main Article Content
Abstract
The scholarly publishing landscape is changing fast with the rise of open science practices and increased expectations for transparency and rigour. However, there is a notable gap in understanding how the social science researchers are adopting transparency and openness in scholarly publishing (TOSP), given the emergence of open science practices. Therefore, this paper seeks to: (a) What do social science researchers interpret as "transparency and openness in scholarly publishing", and (b) How do social science researchers navigate and practise transparency and openness in their scholarly publishing? A cohort of the 100 most productive Malaysian-based social science researchers identified from the Web of Science database was invited to participate via email. The evidence reported here comes from 20 who agreed to be interviewed. The findings reveal that social science researchers conceptualise TOSP through seven key themes: Data transparency; practices; Methodological transparency; Embracing open access; Readiness for criticism and feedback; Reliable peer review process; Research ethics in data management; and Articulating research limitations. Additionally, the study emphasises nine TOSP practices that social scientists highlight, including sharing and connecting; publishing in affordable open access journals; authorship and publishing standards; international research collaboration; using open access repositories; adopting preprints; adhering to ethics and integrity; participating in the peer review process; and ensuring research reproducibility. This study underscores the importance of TOSP attributes in fostering transparency and openness, which in turn enhances the credibility and impact of social science research. Aligning with these principles enables researchers to contribute to more reliable and impactful scholarship in an evolving academic landscape.
Downloads
Article Details
It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published, accepted for publication, nor simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) agree that copyright for the article is transferred to the publisher, if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication.
References
About Transparency - Assignment Point. (2021). https://www.assignmentpoint.com/ science/psychology/about-transparency.html.
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C.A. (2011). Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 87, 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0352-7.
Abrizah, A., Shah, N. A. K., & Nicholas, D. (2019). Malaysian early career researchers on the ethics of scholarly publishing. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 24(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol24no1.5.
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Albert, K. M. (2006). Open access: Implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(3), 253–262.
Armbruster, C., & Romary, L. (2011). Comparing repository types: Challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. SSRN Electronic Journal, October. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1506905.
Aspura, M. K. Y. I., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115, 1315–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2720-z.
Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922110400.
Bertram, M. G., Sundin, J., Roche, D. G., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Thoré, E. S. J., & Brodin, T. (2023). Open science. Current Biology, 33 (15), R792-R797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.05.036.
Bishop, L. (2009). Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x.
Bordons, M., González-Albo, B., & Moreno-Solano, L. (2023). Improving our understanding of open access: how it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership. Scientometrics, 128(8), 4651–4676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04726-1.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
Brainard, J., & Kaiser, J. (2022). U.S. to require free access to papers on all research it funds. Science,. Nature, 377 (6610), 1026–1027. DOI: 10.1126/science.ade6577.
Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 10, 322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.
Cashin, A., Bagg, M., Richards, G., Toomey, E., McAuley, J., & Lee, H. (2020). Limited engagement with transparent and open science standards in the policies of pain journals: a cross-sectional evaluation. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 26, 313–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111296.
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.
cOAlition S. (2017). Guidance on the implementation of Plan S. In: cOAlition S. https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance.pdf.
Davarpanah, M. R. (2009). The international publication productivity of Malaysia in social sciences. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 41(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.41.1.67.
Drury, L. (2022). The normalization of preprints. Paris, France: International Science Council. https://doi.org/10.24948/2022.02.
Errington, T. M., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Reproducibility in cancer biology: Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology. eLife, 10, e67995. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67995.
Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. F. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45(5), 591–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.591.
Friesike, S., & Fecher, B. (2016). Collaboration, participation and transparency: The promise of digitizing academic research. Research Handbook on Digital Transformations, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717766.00013.
Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
Garfinkel, M. (2021). Towards the right standards. Mètode Science Studies Journal, 11, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.11.16103.
Garfinkel, S., Alam, S., Baskin, P., Bennett, C., Carruthers, B., Engler, J., Flanagin, A., Garrity, S., Graf, C., Imperiale, M. J., King, C., Kleinert, S., Kulp, D., Mankowski, C., Nugent, N., Pulvirenti, T., Qualkenbush, L., Sobiecki, E., Wainstock, D., … Yucel, J. (2023). Enhancing partnerships of institutions and journals to address concerns about research misconduct: Recommendations from a working group of institutional research integrity officers and journal editors and publishers. JAMA Network Open, 6(6), E2320796. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20796.
Hazmi, N. R., Abrizah, A., & Idaya, A. M. K. Y. (2023). Research data governance activities for implementation in Malaysia research performing organizations: Insights from data practitioners via Delphi study. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 28(3), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no3.3.
Hodonu-Wusu, J. O., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2020). Malaysian researchers on open data: The first national survey on awareness, practices and attitudes. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 25(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22452/ mjlis.vol25no2.1.
Horbach, S., Tijdink, J., & Bouter, L. (2022). Research funders should be more transparent: A plea for open applications. Royal Society Open Science, 9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220750.
Hrynaszkiewicz, I. (2020). Publishers’ responsibilities in promoting data quality and reproducibility. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, 257, 319–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2019_290.
Huang, C. K., Neylon, C., Hosking, R., Montgomery, L., Wilson, K. S., Ozaygen, A., & Brookes-Kenworthy, C. (2020). Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. ELife, 9, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7554/ELIFE.57067.
Ikeuchi, U. (2023). The impacts of changes in journal data policies: A cross‐disciplinary survey. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60, 998-1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.924.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011.
Kanza, S., & Knight, N.J. (2022). Behind every great research project is great data management. BMC Research Notes 15, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05908-5.
Khan, H., Almoli, E., Franco, M. C., & Moher, D. (2022). Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 144, 136–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.003.
Klien, M., Boradwell, P., Farb, S.E., & Grappone, T. (2016). Comparing published scientific journal articles to their preprint versions. Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910896.291090.
Kodua-Ntim, K. (2023). Narrative review on open access institutional repositories and knowledge sharing in South Africa. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(9), 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24808.
Krishnamurthy, Dr. M., Deshpande, Dr. B. S., & Sajana, Dr. C. (2021). Crosswalk among prominent open research data repositories. Webology, 18(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.14704/web/v18i2/web18307.
Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Do authors comply with mandates for open access? Nature, 562(7728), 483–486.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513.
Markowitz, D., Song, H., & Taylor, S. (2021). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 739-763. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030.
Maxwell, L., Shreedhar, P., Dauga, D., McQuilton, P., Terry, R. F., Denisiuk, A., Molnar-Gabor, F., Saxena, A., & Sansone, S. A. (2023). FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries. The Lancet Digital Health, 5 (10), e712–e736.
Nicholas, D., Revez, J. , Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Clark, D., Xu, J., Swigon, M., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., & Herman, E. (2024). Purchase and publish: Early career researchers and open access publishing costs. Learned Publishing, e1617. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1617.
Nicholas, D., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Herman, E., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., & Świgoń, M. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1102
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.
O’Kane, P., Smith, A., & Lerman, M. P. (2021). Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119865016
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/Doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716.
Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007). Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308.
Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611.
Prior, F., Almeida, J., Kathiravelu, P., Kurç, T., Smith, K., Fitzgerald, T., & Saltz, J. (2020). Open access image repositories: high-quality data to enable machine learning research. Clinical Radiology, 25(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.crad.2019.04.002.
Ross-Hellauer T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, Apr 27(6:588). doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors, and reviewers. PLoS One, 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311.
Serghiou, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Altmetric scores, citations, and publication of studies posted as preprints. JAMA, 319(4), 402–404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21168.
Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research. In Research Ethics Forum (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Smyth, A.R., Rawlinson, C., & Jenkins, G. (2020). Preprint servers: a “rush to publish” or “just in time delivery” for science? Thorax, Jul; 75(7), 532–533. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214937.
Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking transparency and rigor from a qualitative open science perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 5. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7
Sukoco, B. M., Putra, R. A., Muqaffi, H. N., Lutfian, M. V., & Wicaksono, H. (2023). Comparative study of ASEAN research productivity. SAGE Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221145157.
Thanh Le, T., Andreadakis, Z., Kumar, A., Gómez Román, R., Tollefsen, S., Saville, M., & Mayhew, S. (2020). The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 19 (5), 305–306). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-020-00073-5.
Van Noorden R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479–481. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8.
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2230-9.
Wallach, J. D., Boyack, K. W., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017. PLoS Biology, 16(11), 2015–2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930.