347 36 6238 2 15652 document 6238 Raw_data_Editors_clean.xlsx application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet 9cf818793bea6ea9be8a8a589cfce504 MD5 54966 2017-03-27 11:26:09 https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/347/1/Raw_data_Editors_clean.xlsx 347 1 1 application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet other en public cc_by

Raw_data_Editors_clean.xlsx

data archive 6430 disk0/00/00/03/47 2017-10-09 10:04:18 2024-07-15 10:58:29 2017-10-09 10:04:18 data_collection show Carroll Harriet H.A.Carroll@bath.ac.uk 0000-0002-4998-4675 University of Bath TRUE JZ0020 dept_health publication bias, peer-review, open science, research publication, study reporting This dataset includes responses from Editors contacted in order to gauge opinions on nine different methods that have been proposed to reduce publication bias. Responses from Editors in the project "The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias" 2017-03-24 University of Bath public We conducted a survey to help understand the views of journal Editors with regards to different methods of the publication and peer-review process to help reduce publication bias. Editors were asked questions about their views on publication bias and the publication process in general, followed by nine proposals which have been suggested to reduce publication bias. They were asked to choose the proposal they felt to be 'most effective' at reducing publication bias, and were asked to rate each proposal from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective). Throughout the survey, there was open ended questions (all optional to complete) so that respondents were able to discuss the pros and cons to any of the proposals. RightsHolder University of Bath Economic and Social Research Council https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000269 ES/J50015X/1 South West ESRC Doctoral Training Centre DTG 2011 Bristol Online Surveys was used to gain opinions of journal Editors on the different proposed methods to reduce publication bias during the peer-review and publication process. Editors were chosen via selecting the first 100 articles to come up in a Google Scholar, Jane Biosemantics and PubMed search of 'publication bias'. Additionally, the top 100 journals according to impact factor (assessed via scimagojr.com) were contacted. All searches were conducted in July 2015. Emails to Editors asking them to complete and disseminate the research among their editorial staff were sent, with a subsequent two reminders approximately one month apart if the Editor had not responded. The ID as used in the manuscript has been included under ‘ID’. One Editor used their name instead of journal. This was replaced by their respective journal. One Editor stated that they did not want to do the survey, they just wanted to see the questions. Their data have been deleted. 2015-09-01 2015-12-07 2015-09-01 2015-12-07 UK en 1 10.15125/BATH-00347 https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-00348 data https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 pub open