Perceptions of Open Science in the Editorial and Peer Review Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Journal Editors
This cross-sectional survey of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) journal editors reveals that while most respondents are familiar with open science practices, particularly open access and preprints, they hold varying perceptions regarding the importance, benefits, and challenges of integrating these practices into editorial and peer review processes.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. It is not medical advice. Do not make health decisions based on this content. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world of scientific publishing as a massive, bustling library. In this library, Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) is a special, somewhat misunderstood wing. For years, people have worried that the books (research studies) in this wing aren't always written with the same strict rules as the "main" science wing. Some worry the stories are too vague, or the ingredients (methods) aren't listed clearly.
To fix this, the library is trying to adopt a new set of rules called Open Science (OS). Think of Open Science as a policy where authors must leave their front doors wide open. They have to show their raw notes, their data, and their drafts to everyone, not just a few gatekeepers. This is supposed to make the library more trustworthy, transparent, and easier for everyone to visit.
But before the library can fully switch to these new rules, the editors (the librarians who decide which books get shelved) need to be on board. That is exactly what this study did. The researchers sent a survey to the librarians of 115 TCIM journals to ask: "What do you think about these new Open Science rules? Do you like them? Are you scared of them? Do you know how to use them?"
Here is the story of what they found, broken down into simple parts:
1. The Librarians Know the Rules, But Haven't Been Trained
Most of the librarians (about 90%) said, "Yeah, I know what Open Science is." They were very familiar with Open Access (making books free to read) and Preprints (posting drafts before the final book is printed).
However, there was a catch: Most of them had never been to a class on how to actually do it.
- Imagine being asked to drive a race car, but you've never taken a driving lesson.
- About 45% of the editors said they had zero formal training in Open Science.
- Even worse, the journals they work for often don't offer training either. It's like the library management saying, "Here's the new car, figure it out."
2. The Favorite Tool: Open Access
When asked which Open Science practice they liked best, the editors overwhelmingly chose Open Access.
- The Good: They believe it's like turning on the lights in a dark room. It lets more people see the research, builds trust, and helps scientists share ideas faster.
- The Bad: They were worried that if the door is too wide open, people might misuse the information, steal ideas, or that non-experts might misinterpret the complex data.
3. The Mixed Bag: Other Tools
The editors had different feelings about the other tools:
- Preprints (Drafts): They liked the idea of sharing early, but worried people might read a rough draft and think it's the final truth, leading to confusion.
- Open Data (Sharing the raw numbers): They agreed this makes research honest and transparent. But, they were nervous about privacy—what if someone steals the data or figures out who the patients were?
- Registration (Writing down the plan before starting): This was seen as a good way to stop scientists from changing their stories halfway through.
- Patient Involvement: This was the most "neutral" topic. Editors weren't sure if involving patients in the research process would actually help speed things up or just make the process more complicated.
4. The Big Worries (The "Barriers")
When the editors were allowed to write in their own thoughts, four main themes popped up, like clouds blocking the sun:
- The Quality Fear: Some editors worried that if everything is "open," the library might get flooded with low-quality, messy books that haven't been properly checked. They fear the "signal" of good science will get lost in the "noise" of bad science.
- The TCIM Reputation: Because TCIM already struggles with being taken seriously by the mainstream science world, editors are terrified that Open Science might accidentally highlight flaws or make their field look even less rigorous if not handled perfectly.
- The Logistics: They are worried about the extra work. It takes time and money to organize data and get permissions. Many editors feel they are already stretched thin.
- Predatory Journals: They are worried that "bad actors" (predatory journals) will use the "Open" label to trick people into thinking their fake books are real science.
5. The Bottom Line
The study concludes that the librarians (editors) are ready to talk about Open Science, and they generally see the value in it. They think Open Access is the most important step to take first.
However, they are currently flying blind. They lack the training, the clear guidelines, and the support systems to make these changes happen smoothly. The researchers suggest that if the scientific community wants to improve the quality and trust of TCIM research, they need to stop just asking for "more openness" and start actually teaching the editors how to do it and giving them the tools to handle the risks.
In short: The editors want to make the library more transparent, but they need a map and a training manual before they can safely open the doors.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.