348 29 6236 2 15643 document 6236 Raw_data_Academics,_researchers_clean.xlsx application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet 6a8f42adabbe801c66ab85a59c7aee6d MD5 90710 2017-03-27 10:01:51 https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/348/1/Raw_data_Academics%2C_researchers_clean.xlsx 348 1 1 application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet other en public cc_by

Raw_data_Academics,_researchers_clean.xlsx

data archive 6430 disk0/00/00/03/48 2017-10-09 10:05:39 2024-07-15 10:58:29 2017-10-09 10:05:39 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, research publication, open science, study reporting Responses from academics/researchers in the project "The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias". Data were collected via Bristol Online Surveys. Using convenience snowball method, we collected opinions from academics and researchers regarding 9 different methods of peer-review/publication that have been proposed to reduce publication bias. Respondents were asked questions regarding their views on the efficacy of the publication process, and then asked to choose the method they felt to be most effective at reducing publication bias, and to rate all the methods from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective) . Throughout the survey, non-compulsory open ended questions were provided in order for respondents to provide their opinions on the pros and cons of the methods. 2017-03-24 University of Bath public We conducted a survey to help understand the views of academics/researchers with regards to different methods of the publication and peer-review process to help reduce publication bias. Respondents 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 academics/researchers regarding the different proposed methods to reduce publication bias during the peer-review and publication process. A convenience snowballing method was used, disseminated via email and Twitter. The ID as used in the manuscript has been included under ‘ID’. The answers to question 15.a. (‘If yes, would you be willing to name the journal(s) you have most recently published in (maximum 5)?’) have been changed to the mean impact factor (to one decimal place) of the journal(s) stated, rather than providing the journal(s) names. Institution names have been replaced with their respective country. 2015-09-01 2015-12-07 2015-09-01 2015-12-07 UK en 1 10.15125/BATH-00348 https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-00347 data https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 pub open