N-of-1 Trials, Their Reporting Guidelines, and the Advancement of Open Science Principles · Special Issue 3: Personalized (N-of-1) Trials

Abstract:  N-of-1 trials are multiple crossover trials done over time within a single person; they can also be done with a series of individuals. Their focus on the individual as the unit of analysis maintains statistical power while accommodating greater differences between patients than most standard clinical trials. This makes them particularly useful in rare diseases, while also being applicable across many health conditions and populations. Best practices recommend the use of reporting guidelines to publish research in a standardized and transparent fashion. N-of-1 trials have the SPIRIT extension for N-of-1 protocols (SPENT) and the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT).

Open science is a recent movement focused on making scientific knowledge fully available to anyone, increasing collaboration, and sharing of scientific efforts. Open science goals increase research transparency, rigor, and reproducibility, and reduce research waste. Many organizations and articles focus on specific aspects of open science, for example, open access publishing. Throughout the trajectory of research (idea, development, running a trial, analysis, publication, dissemination, knowledge translation/reflection), many open science ideals are addressed by the individual-focused nature of N-of-1 trials, including issues such as patient perspectives in research development, personalization, and publications, enhanced equity from the broader inclusion criteria possible, and easier remote trials options. However, N-of-1 trials also help us understand areas of caution, such as monitoring of post hoc analyses and the nuances of confidentiality for rare diseases in open data sharing. The N-of-1 reporting guidelines encourage rigor and transparency of N-of-1 considerations for key aspects of the research trajectory.

Launching the Experimental Publishing Compendium | Centre for Postdigital Cultures

The Copim community and Open Book Futures are pleased

to announce the launch of the

Experimental Publishing Compendium


The compendium is a guide and reference for scholars, publishers, developers, librarians, and designers who want to challenge, push, and redefine the shape, form, and rationale of scholarly books. The compendium gathers and links tools, examples of experimental books, and experimental publishing practices with a focus on free and open-source software, platforms, and digital publishing tools that presses and authors can either use freely or can adapt to their research and publishing workflows. With the compendium we want to promote and inspire authors and publishers to publish experimental monographs and to challenge and redefine the shape, form, and rationale of scholarly books.

We are celebrating the official launch of the Experimental Publishing Compendium with a festive calendar on Twitter (#ExperimentalPublishingCompendium) and Mastodon, featuring 24 experimental publishing tools, practices & books from the compendium.

The compendium includes experiments with the form and format of the scholarly book; with the various (multi)media we can publish long-form research in; and with how people produce, disseminate, consume, review, reuse, interact with, and form communities around books. Far from being merely a formal exercise, experimental publishing as we conceive it here also reimagines the relationalities that constitute scholarly writing, research, and publishing. Books, after all, validate what counts as research and materialise how scholarly knowledge production is organised.

We hope that the linked entries in this compendium inspire speculations on the future of the book and the humanities more in general and encourage publishers and authors to explore publications beyond the standard printed codex format.

The Experimental Publishing Compendium has been curated by Janneke Adema, Julien McHardy, and Simon Bowie and has been compiled by Janneke Adema, Simon Bowie, Gary Hall, Rebekka Kiesewetter, Julien McHardy, and Tobias Steiner. Future versions will be overseen, curated, and maintained by an Editorial Board. Back-end coding by Simon Bowie, front-end coding by Joel Galvez, design by Joel Galvez & Martina Vanini.

The Experimental Publishing Compendium is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). All source code is available on GitHub at https://github.com/COPIM/expub_compendium under an MIT License.

The compendium grew out of the following two reports:

Adema, J., Bowie, S., Mars, M., and T. Steiner (2022) Books Contain Multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing (2022 update). Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). doi: 10.21428/785a6451.1792b84f& 10.5281/zenodo.6545475.
Adema, J., Moore, S., and T. Steiner (2021) Promoting and Nurturing Interactions with Open Access Books: Strategies for Publishers and Authors. Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). doi: 10.21428/785a6451.2d6f4263and 10.5281/zenodo.5572413

COPIM, Open Book Futures, and the Experimental Publishing Compendium are supported by the Research England Development (RED) Fund and by Arcadia.


Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapy Journals | Physical Therapy | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  Objective The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapy journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor. Methods Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapy journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their journal impact factor was determined. Results Thirty-five journals’ author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0–8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. Transparency and openness promotion factor scores were a significant predictor of journal impact factor scores. Conclusion There is low implementation of the transparency and openness promotion standards by physical therapy journals. Transparency and openness promotion factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for journal impact factor scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists. Impact Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.

Open Data and Accessible Source Materials … | Open Research Europe

“These guidelines relate to the Open Research Europe policy on data availability, which requires all authors to share the underlying data which relates to their article. The policy text can be read here. The policy is aligned to the Horizon Europe requirements for research data management, as expressed in Article 17 of the Model Grant Agreement.

All articles should include citations to trusted repositories that host the data underlying the results, together with any information needed to replicate, validate, and/or reuse the results/ your study and analysis of the data – as part of the Data Availability Statement. This includes details of any software, instrument or other tool used to process results and, where relevant, the raw data. Importantly, publishing your data will allow you to track its provenance and ensure that those responsible for its generation are adequately credited for their work. Others who then reuse your data for their own studies can cite your data (which can be cited separately from your article if appropriate). Failure to openly provide data for publication without good justification will result in your article being rejected….

Exceptions to open access to research data underlying publications on Open Research Europe are permitted according to the relevant policy of Horizon Europe. These consider the obligation to protect results, confidentiality obligations, security obligations, the obligation to protect personal data and other legitimate constraints….

Open Research Europe requires you to provide access to all of the data and sources you have generated or reused in your research. This is a key step to ensure that your research and methods are transparent and that your results can be reproduced (where relevant)….”

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science are now available!

“Responsible Open Science has emerged as a critical framework for promoting transparency, collaboration, and ethical conduct in the rapidly evolving landscape of scientific research. As part of the ROSiE project, D5.2, titled “Strategic Policy Paper on Responsible Open Science,” addresses various crosscutting issues and challenges in Open Science (OS), research ethics, and integrity.

D5.2 aims to equip policymakers, research institutions (RPOs and RFOs), publishers, researchers, and the public with the necessary tools and knowledge to facilitate the transition towards action and practice-oriented policy methods.

D5.3 represents a significant step forward by transforming D5.2’s and the other deliverables’ recommendations into a set of guidelines. These guidelines are designed to support stakeholders in embracing Responsible Open Science practices and provide practical tools and knowledge.

Furthermore, D5.3 establishes the first-ever guidance document on Open Science in Europe, showcasing the ROSiE project’s commitment to advancing the field.

By adopting the ROSiE General Guidelines for Responsible Open Science, stakeholders across the research landscape can actively contribute to the promotion of responsible Open Science. Through this collaborative effort, we aim to foster transparency, and societal impact in Europe and beyond.”

publication strategy and open science – Google Sheets

“A preconsidered & coherent set of choices regarding the why, what, when, how and where of sharing/publishing research.

What are your or your team’s priorities for the next project coming up? What role for open science practices in your publishing?
Tick your goals, look at the suggestions appearing in the other columns, then decide on your own preferences….”

Octopus Author Guide

“Octopus publications are not equivalent to journal articles or papers. Instead, there are 8 smaller publication types aligned with the publication process.

Think of Octopus like a ‘patent office’ where you can register all your work, including theories, data, and analyses. Whatever you publish should be the formal ‘version of record’, ready to be assessed by others and publicly recorded against your name and ORCID iD.Publishing on Octopus is quick and easy by design. Here’s a step-by-step guide to get you started: …”


“The continuous advancement of technology and updates in Open Science mandates and standards shapes the evolution of Open Science. We are committed to consistently improving and optimizing our guidelines to align with this evolution, resulting in increased interoperability and compatibility. As your gateway to the global Research and Innovation ecosystem, our organisation provides access to a wide range of resources and opportunities.


Compliance with the OpenAIRE Guidelines is a prerequisite for a data source to be harvested by OpenAIRE. To integrate into the OpenAIRE Graph, content providers can leverage the OpenAIRE PROVIDE service, which enables the validation and registration of their data source(s).      OpenAIRE PROVIDE plays a pivotal role within the OpenAIRE infrastructure as a fundamental service. Serving as a comprehensive web service, it acts as a one-stop-shop, facilitating the connection among content providers, OpenAIRE, and the EOSC. By utilizing OpenAIRE PROVIDE, content providers can seamlessly integrate their content into the global research community, becoming an essential building block. This service offers repository managers personalized dashboards and a suite of services aimed at enhancing metadata collections and ensuring interoperability based on globally recognized standards.    By upgrading your repository to align with the latest versions of the OpenAIRE guidelines, you significantly enhance the interoperability and flexibility of the metadata of your research product. Additionally, you enhance the establishment of links and relationships with various types of research products and entities, enrich the latter with additional Persistent Identifiers for research products, the inclusion of authors ORCID iDs, and improve the subject classifications by incorporating subject schemes such as ACM and Mesh. …”

A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science (FULL GUIDE)

Abstract:  Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as a new editor to know where to start. For this reason, we have created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices at their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy/practice.

Nieuwe gids over open science speciaal voor beginnende onderzoekers | NWO

From Google’s English:  “What should I pay attention to in open science? How do I set up my research openly and transparently? Where can I publish? NWO has published a manual on open science in collaboration with UNL, DANS-KNAW and UKB (the partnership of university libraries and the KB). The guide answers a number of frequently asked questions from (young) researchers that they have when they start working with open science.”

Call for Volunteers: TOP Guidelines Advisory Board and Preregistration Template Evaluation Working Group

“Are you passionate about promoting transparency and openness in scientific research? The Center for Open Science (COS) is currently seeking volunteers for two opportunities. We seek colleagues to join (1) the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines Advisory Board and (2) the Preregistration Template Evaluation Working Group….”