Search

Aim: Previous research has shown patients and the public in Australia generally support medical researchers in making de-identified research data available to other scientists. However, this research has focussed on certain types of data and recipients. We surveyed Australians affected by cancer to characterize their attitudes toward the sharing of research data with multiple third parties, including the public., Methods: A short, anonymous online survey of Australians with a previous diagnosis of cancer was advertised between October 27, 2022, and February 27, 2023. Quantitative responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were coded deductively and summarised using content analysis., Results: In total, 551 respondents contributed data to the survey. There was strong support for cancer researchers sharing non-human and de-identified human research data with clinicians (90% and 95%, respectively) and non-profit researchers (both 94%). However, fewer participants supported sharing data with for-profit researchers (both 64%) or publicly (both 61%). When asked if they would hypothetically consent to researchers at their treatment location using and sharing their de-identified data publicly, only half agreed. In contrast, after being shown a visual representation of the de-identified survey data, 80% of respondents supported sharing it publicly., Conclusion: Australians affected by cancer support the sharing of research data, particularly with clinicians and non-profit researchers. Our results also imply that visualization of the data to be shared may enhance support for making it publicly available. These results should help alleviate any concerns about research participants' attitudes toward data sharing, as well as boost researchers' motivation for sharing., (© 2024 The Authors. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Many journals in ecology and evolutionary biology encourage or require authors to make their data and code available alongside articles. In this study we investigated how often this data and code could be used together, when both were available, to computationally reproduce results published in articles. We surveyed the data and code sharing practices of 177 meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology journals published between 2015-17: 60% of articles shared data only, 1% shared code only, and 15% shared both data and code. In each of the articles which had shared both (n = 26), we selected a target result and attempted to reproduce it. Using the shared data and code files, we successfully reproduced the targeted results in 27-73% of the 26 articles, depending on the stringency of the criteria applied for a successful reproduction. The results from this sample of meta-analyses in the 2015-17 literature can provide a benchmark for future meta-research studies gauging the computational reproducibility of published research in ecology and evolutionary biology., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kambouris et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade., Methods: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors., Results: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires., Conclusions: Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.

Objectives: To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability., Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data., Data Sources: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Forward citation searches were also performed on 30 August 2022., Review Methods: Meta-research studies that investigated data or code sharing across a sample of scientific articles presenting original medical and health research were identified. Two authors screened records, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted summary data from study reports when individual participant data could not be retrieved. Key outcomes of interest were the prevalence of statements that declared that data or code were publicly or privately available (declared availability) and the success rates of retrieving these products (actual availability). The associations between data and code availability and several factors (eg, journal policy, type of data, trial design, and human participants) were also examined. A two stage approach to meta-analysis of individual participant data was performed, with proportions and risk ratios pooled with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis., Results: The review included 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 specialties. Eligible studies examined a median of 195 primary articles (interquartile range 113-475), with a median publication year of 2015 (interquartile range 2012-2018). Only eight studies (8%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a prevalence of declared and actual public data availability of 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 11%) and 2% (1% to 3%), respectively, between 2016 and 2021. For public code sharing, both the prevalence of declared and actual availability were estimated to be <0.5% since 2016. Meta-regressions indicated that only declared public data sharing prevalence estimates have increased over time. Compliance with mandatory data sharing policies ranged from 0% to 100% across journals and varied by type of data. In contrast, success in privately obtaining data and code from authors historically ranged between 0% and 37% and 0% and 23%, respectively., Conclusions: The review found that public code sharing was persistently low across medical research. Declarations of data sharing were also low, increasing over time, but did not always correspond to actual sharing of data. The effectiveness of mandatory data sharing policies varied substantially by journal and type of data, a finding that might be informative for policy makers when designing policies and allocating resources to audit compliance., Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7SX8U., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Australian Research Council during the conduct of this research for the submitted work; some authors had support from research institutions listed in the funding statement; some authors received financial support to attend an international congress to present preliminary results of this project; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper explores judgements about the replicability of social and behavioural sciences research and what drives those judgements. Using a mixed methods approach, it draws on qualitative and quantitative data elicited from groups using a structured approach called the IDEA protocol ('investigate', 'discuss', 'estimate' and 'aggregate'). Five groups of five people with relevant domain expertise evaluated 25 research claims that were subject to at least one replication study. Participants assessed the probability that each of the 25 research claims would replicate (i.e. that a replication study would find a statistically significant result in the same direction as the original study) and described the reasoning behind those judgements. We quantitatively analysed possible correlates of predictive accuracy, including self-rated expertise and updating of judgements after feedback and discussion. We qualitatively analysed the reasoning data to explore the cues, heuristics and patterns of reasoning used by participants. Participants achieved 84% classification accuracy in predicting replicability. Those who engaged in a greater breadth of reasoning provided more accurate replicability judgements. Some reasons were more commonly invoked by more accurate participants, such as 'effect size' and 'reputation' (e.g. of the field of research). There was also some evidence of a relationship between statistical literacy and accuracy., Competing Interests: We declare we have no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Development of very-low field MRI is an active area of research. It aims at reducing operating costs and improve portability. However, the signal-to-noise issue becomes prominent at ultra-low field (<1 mT), especially for molecular imaging purposes that addresses specific biochemical events. In the context of preclinical molecular MRI of abnormal proteolysis the paper describes a MRI system able to produce Overhauser-enhanced MR images in living rats through in situ Dynamic Nuclear Polarization at 206 µT using stable and non-toxic nitroxides. In parallel conventional images are generated at 206 µT following pre-polarization at 20 mT. Results show that nitroxides are visualized in 3D within a few minutes in the lungs, kidneys and bladder post-administration. This system will be used for molecular imaging of inflammation using protease-specific nitroxide probes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Fraser et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear how commonly these products are shared, and what factors are associated with sharing. Our objective was to evaluate how frequently oncology researchers make data and code available and explore factors associated with sharing., Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 306 cancer-related articles indexed in PubMed in 2019 which studied research subjects with a cancer diagnosis was performed. All articles were independently screened for eligibility by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence of affirmative sharing declarations and the rate with which declarations connected to data complying with key FAIR principles (e.g. posted to a recognised repository, assigned an identifier, data license outlined, non-proprietary formatting). We also investigated associations between sharing rates and several journal characteristics (e.g. sharing policies, publication models), study characteristics (e.g. cancer rarity, study design), open science practices (e.g. pre-registration, pre-printing) and subsequent citation rates between 2020 and 2021., Results: One in five studies declared data were publicly available (59/306, 19%, 95% CI: 15-24%). However, when data availability was investigated this percentage dropped to 16% (49/306, 95% CI: 12-20%), and then to less than 1% (1/306, 95% CI: 0-2%) when data were checked for compliance with key FAIR principles. While only 4% of articles that used inferential statistics reported code to be available (10/274, 95% CI: 2-6%), the odds of reporting code to be available were 5.6 times higher for researchers who shared data. Compliance with mandatory data and code sharing policies was observed in 48% (14/29) and 0% (0/6) of articles, respectively. However, 88% of articles (45/51) included data availability statements when required. Policies that encouraged data sharing did not appear to be any more effective than not having a policy at all. The only factors associated with higher rates of data sharing were studying rare cancers and using publicly available data to complement original research., Conclusions: Data and code sharing in oncology occurs infrequently, and at a lower rate than would be expected given the prevalence of mandatory sharing policies. There is also a large gap between those declaring data to be available, and those archiving data in a way that facilitates its reuse. We encourage journals to actively check compliance with sharing policies, and researchers consult community-accepted guidelines when archiving the products of their research., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Identifying and ensuring the integrity of products plays an important role in today's globalized world. Miniaturized information taggants in the packaging surface are therefore required to monitor the product itself instead of applying external labels. Ideally, multiple types of information are stored in such additives. In this work, micrometer-sized core-shell particles (supraparticles) were developed to provide material surfaces with both an identifier and a surface abrasion indication functionality. The core of the supraparticles contains iron oxide nanoparticles that allow identification of the surface with a spectral magnetic code resolved by magnetic particle spectroscopy. The fluorescent silica nanoparticles in the supraparticle shell can be abraded by mechanical stress and resolved by fluorescence spectroscopy. This provides information about the mechanical integrity of the system. The application as surfaces, that contain several types of information in one supraparticle, was demonstrated here by incorporating such bifunctional supraparticles as additives in a surface coating.

Background: Access to affordable and effective menstrual hygiene products (MHP) is critical to the menstrual health of adolescent girls and young women (AGYW). In this mixed-methods analysis, we use data from a programme delivering comprehensive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to describe access to MHP and how COVID-19-related closures affected access to MHP; we use qualitative data to understand AGYW's experience accessing products during the study., Methods: Between September 2019-January 2021, we used data routinely collected from ten Yathu Yathu hubs offering community-based, peer-led SRH services to adolescents and young people aged 15-24. Hubs offered free MHP (primarily disposable pads) as a service. To incentivise service access, a "loyalty" card system was embedded within Yathu Yathu, allowing individuals to gain points for services accessed and redeem rewards using these points. Branded pads, tampons and reusable pads were among available rewards. We describe access to service pads and to reward MHP, and use logistic regression to investigate factors associated with accessing pads and reward products before (Sept 2019-March 2020) and after (July 2020-Jan 2021) COVID-19-related closures. Focus group discussions explored accessibility of offering MHP through hubs., Results: Between September 2019-January 2021, 6374 AGYW made 34,116 hub visits to access an SRH service and/or redeem a reward. At 30% of these visits, AGYW accessed any MHP. Before COVID19-closures, an average of 17% of monthly visits were for freely-available disposable pads compared to 34% after hubs reopened (p < 0.001). Results were similar for reward visits. Overall, 63% of 6374 AGYW collected pads as a service at least once. Prior to COVID19-closures, AGYW aged 18-24 were more likely to access service pads than adolescents (15-17-years). After reopening, access was lower among older AGYW. Prior to hub closures, uptake of reward MHP was higher among AGYW with some secondary education but not after reopening. Discussions revealed that, for adolescents aged 15-19, COVID-19-related hub closures required reverting to using ineffective materials to manage menstruation., Conclusion: Availability of MHP through Yathu Yathu provided a large number of AGYW with access to these products. Hubs seemed particularly important for adolescent girls. Community-based, peer-led hubs should be considered as spaces to provide AGYW access to affordable and effective MHP., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Replication-an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice-is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.