Objective:

To assess the feasibility of automated tools for monitoring article-level transparency indicators and to characterize the journals’ current open science policies through manual extraction.

Approach:

• Study Design: A cross-sectional study examining open science at two levels: journal policies and practices described in published articles.
• Sample Selection: Included 10 internationally recognized general medical journals, excluding specialist titles, without relying on impact factor.
• Policy Evaluation: Editorial policies were assessed independently according to the TOP2025 criteria across three domains: research practices, verification practices, and verification studies.
• Data Extraction: Research articles from January 2020 to December 2023 were included, categorized, and extracted using PubMed queries.

Key Findings:

• Prospective clinical-trial registration became a requirement in 2005, but data sharing has progressed slowly.
• Adherence to data-sharing statements remains limited despite mandates from ICMJE.
• Some journals have implemented stringent measures for data sharing, but these are primarily focused on clinical trials.
• Open-science practices are not widely applied to observational research, which could enhance reproducibility.

Interpretation:

Evaluating journals’ implementation of open science is necessary to determine the realization of their commitments to transparency.

Limitations:

• The study did not include specialist journals.
• The assessment was limited to policies available on journals' websites.

Conclusion:

A systematic approach can reveal deficiencies in open science practices and enhance the credibility of biomedical research.

Sources:

• TOP Guidelines
• DORA