Search

Conversations about open science have reached the mainstream, yet many open science practices such as data sharing remain uncommon. Our efforts towards openness therefore need to increase in scale and aim for a more ambitious target. We need an ecosystem not only where research outputs are openly shared but also in which transparency permeates the research process from the start and lends itself to more rigorous and collaborative research. To support this vision, this Essay provides an overview of a selection of open science initiatives from the past 2 decades, focusing on methods transparency, scholarly communication, team science, and research culture, and speculates about what the future of open science could look like. It then draws on these examples to provide recommendations for how funders, institutions, journals, regulators, and other stakeholders can create an environment that is ripe for improvement.

Diagnostic screening models for the interpretation of null hypothesis significance test (NHST) results have been influential in highlighting the effect of selective publication on the reproducibility of the published literature, leading to John Ioannidis' much-cited claim that most published research findings are false. These models, however, are typically based on the assumption that hypotheses are dichotomously true or false, without considering that effect sizes for different hypotheses are not the same. To address this limitation, we develop a simulation model that overcomes this by modeling effect sizes explicitly using different continuous distributions, while retaining other aspects of previous models such as publication bias and the pursuit of statistical significance. Our results show that the combination of selective publication, bias, low statistical power and unlikely hypotheses consistently leads to high proportions of false positives, irrespective of the effect size distribution assumed. Using continuous effect sizes also allows us to evaluate the degree of effect size overestimation and prevalence of estimates with the wrong sign in the literature, showing that the same factors that drive false-positive results also lead to errors in estimating effect size direction and magnitude. Nevertheless, the relative influence of these factors on different metrics varies depending on the distribution assumed for effect sizes. The model is made available as an R ShinyApp interface, allowing one to explore features of the literature in various scenarios.

Proposals to increase research reproducibility frequently call for focusing on effect sizes instead of p values, as well as for increasing the statistical power of experiments. However, it is unclear to what extent these two concepts are indeed taken into account in basic biomedical science. To study this in a real-case scenario, we performed a systematic review of effect sizes and statistical power in studies on learning of rodent fear conditioning, a widely used behavioral task to evaluate memory. Our search criteria yielded 410 experiments comparing control and treated groups in 122 articles. Interventions had a mean effect size of 29.5%, and amnesia caused by memory-impairing interventions was nearly always partial. Mean statistical power to detect the average effect size observed in well-powered experiments with significant differences (37.2%) was 65%, and was lower among studies with non-significant results. Only one article reported a sample size calculation, and our estimated sample size to achieve 80% power considering typical effect sizes and variances (15 animals per group) was reached in only 12.2% of experiments. Actual effect sizes correlated with effect size inferences made by readers on the basis of textual descriptions of results only when findings were non-significant, and neither effect size nor power correlated with study quality indicators, number of citations or impact factor of the publishing journal. In summary, effect sizes and statistical power have a wide distribution in the rodent fear conditioning literature, but do not seem to have a large influence on how results are described or cited. Failure to take these concepts into consideration might limit attempts to improve reproducibility in this field of science.

When 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO) is inhibited, roughly half of the CNS effect of the prototypic endocannabinoid anandamide (AEA) is lost. Therefore, we decided to investigate whether inhibiting this enzyme would influence physiological functions classically described as being under control of the endocannabinoid system. Although 5-LO inhibition by MK-886 reduced lipoxin A4 levels in the brain, no effect was found in the elevated plus maze (EPM), even at the highest possible doses, via i.p. (10 mg/kg,) or i.c.v. (500 pmol/2 µl) routes. Accordingly, no alterations in anxiety-like behavior in the EPM test were observed in 5-LO KO mice. Interestingly, aged mice, which show reduced circulating lipoxin A4 levels, were sensitive to MK-886, displaying an anxiogenic-like state in response to treatment. Moreover, exogenous lipoxin A4 induced an anxiolytic-like profile in the EPM test. Our findings are in line with other reports showing no difference between FLAP KO or 5-LO KO and their control strains in adult mice, but increased anxiety-like behavior in aged mice. We also show for the first time that lipoxin A4 affects mouse behavior. In conclusion, we propose an age-dependent relevancy of endogenous 5-LO derivatives in the modulation of anxiety-like behavior, in addition to a potential for exogenous lipoxin A4 in producing an anxiolytic-like state.

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal's impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal's impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article's online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

The processes of memory reconsolidation and extinction have received increasing attention in recent experimental research, as their potential clinical applications begin to be uncovered. A number of studies suggest that amnestic drugs injected after reexposure to a learning context can disrupt either of the two processes, depending on the behavioral protocol employed. Hypothesizing that reconsolidation represents updating of a memory trace in the hippocampus, while extinction represents formation of a new trace, we have built a neural network model in which either simple retrieval, reconsolidation or extinction of a stored attractor can occur upon contextual reexposure, depending on the similarity between the representations of the original learning and reexposure sessions. This is achieved by assuming that independent mechanisms mediate Hebbian-like synaptic strengthening and mismatch-driven labilization of synaptic changes, with protein synthesis inhibition preferentially affecting the former. Our framework provides a unified mechanistic explanation for experimental data showing (a) the effect of reexposure duration on the occurrence of reconsolidation or extinction and (b) the requirement of memory updating during reexposure to drive reconsolidation.