FACETS

Scientists are fallable and biased, but accuracy can be assessed through empirical analysis of published work that quantifies in-text citation (or quotation) errors. In scientific conflicts, it can be difficult for outsiders to know whose evidence or interpretation to trust. In-text citation error rate can assist decision- and policy-making bodies, as well as the courts when conflicts reach the judicial branch of government, by quantifying absolute and relative accuracy of scientists presenting scientific evidence. I propose the use of in-text citation error rates as a scientometric tool to quantify the accuracy of an authors work. In-text citation error rates in excess of an established overall mean (e.g., 11% for minor errors and 7% for major errors in ecology), or differences in in-text citation error rates between opposing groups of scientists could be used to reveal excessive inaccuracies in an author or group. The spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) has been at the center of a multi-decadal conflict caused by competition among people over forest resources, with scientific experts representing opposing stakeholders often presenting conflicting evidence. I applied the in-text citation error rate tool to important papers in the spotted owl and forest fire debate and found evidence of greater error rates in works on one side of this debate. In-text citation error rate can be an effective tool for quantifying accuracy among scientists.

Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Invasive round goby Neogobius melanostomus have advanced eastward through the state of New York and provinces of Ontario and Quebec over the past two decades and are approaching Lake Champlain, one of the largest lakes in North America. This manuscript describes international efforts to monitor round goby populations during 2021-2025 on (a) the southern approach to Lake Champlain via the Hudson River and Champlain Canal, and (b) the northern approach to Lake Champlain via the Saint Lawrence River and Richelieu River. Monitoring utilized environmental DNA (eDNA), backpack electrofishing, beach seining, benthic trawling, and viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) testing. In the Champlain Canal, round goby were captured as far north as the downstream side of the C1 dam (97 kilometers [km] from Lake Champlain) while eDNA detections occurred as far north as the upstream side of the C2 dam (90 km from Lake Champlain). In the Richelieu River, round goby were captured as far south as Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu (82 km from Lake Champlain) while the southern-most eDNA detections occurred near the Canadian side of the international border (4 km from Lake Champlain). Water temperature influenced habitat usage of round goby in the Champlain Canal, with catch rates in near-shore areas declining at < 10 {degrees}C. All VHSV test results were non-detections at the mouth of the Richelieu River, while one positive and two inconclusive results occurred along the Champlain Canal. Together, these data have informed multiple mitigation measures and have implications for management of aquatic invasive species across North America.

Citation metrics are widely used in research appraisal, but they provide incomplete views of scientists impact and research track record. Other indicators of research practices should be linked to citation data. We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least one retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

Ecological research for environmental management occupies a unique and demanding space at the interface of societal needs and academic research. Projects in this space must reconcile stakeholder involvement and real-world applicability with academic requirements such as disciplinary excellence and career advancement. Here, we present a post-hoc account of a 12-year inter- and transdisciplinary research initiative on the management of invasive gobies in central Europe. Based on a synthesis of inputs, outputs, and outcomes, we distill facilitating conditions that increased the likelihood of the project reaching its goals across political, administrative, societal, institutional, team, and individual levels. Rather than "success factors" in a deterministic sense, these are conditions and practices that created a favorable environment for both academic and applied outcomes. The interaction of these domains created windows of opportunity that could be seized for both scientific progress and societal impact. By reflecting from the perspective of natural scientists directly engaged in such a project, we aim to complement existing social science frameworks with an insider view of the lived realities of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration. Our retrospective can inform policy makers, funders, and institutions seeking to create enabling environments for interface research, and may support fellow natural scientists in proactively preparing the ground for their own initiatives.

Waterborne horizontal transmission of viral diseases in fish relies on the release of infectious virus particles (termed shedding) into the aquatic environment. Both the rate and duration of shedding are critical for efficient viral spread, making interventions that reduce shedding valuable for disease control. While vaccines primarily aim to protect individuals from infection and severe disease, they should ideally also limit pathogen transmission by reducing shedding. In this study, we evaluated the capacity of two commercial vaccines - Clynav (DNA vaccine) and AlphaJect Micro 1-PD (inactivated whole-virus vaccine) - to reduce Salmonid alphavirus subtype 3 (SAV3) shedding following experimental infection of Atlantic salmon post-smolts. In individually housed fish, the AlphaJect Micro 1-PD vaccine significantly reduced the proportion of SAV3-shedding fish, the duration of shedding, and the cumulative shedding. The Clynav vaccine significantly reduced the shedding duration and also reduced the proportion of shedding fish. In cohort tanks with concurrent Tenacibaculum dicentrarchi co-infection, the AlphaJect Micro 1-PD vaccine significantly reduced the cumulative shedding but increased the number of shedding days. These results demonstrate the potential of vaccines to limit SAV3 transmission, while also highlighting how co-infections likely influence vaccine efficacy.

Are the lockdown measures limiting the propagation of COVID-19? Recent analyses on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in reducing COVID-19 growth rates delivered conflicting conclusions. While Haug et al. (2020) did find strong empirical support for reductions in COVID-19 growth rates, Bendavid et al. (2021) did not. Here, I present the results of a reanalysis of the data by Bendavid et al. (2021). Instead of relying on pairwise comparisons between 10 countries with fixed-effects regression models to isolate the effect of lockdown measures, I modelled the development of the pandemic with and without lockdown measures for the entire period and all countries included in the data with one mixed-effects regression model. My results reconciled the conflicting conclusions of Haug et al. (2020) and Bendavid et al. (2021): while mandatory business closure orders did not affect COVID-19 growth rates, a general decrease in COVID-19 growth rates was attributable to the implementation of mandatory stay-at-home orders. However, the effect of mandatory stay-at-home orders varied, being weaker, even zero, in some countries and sub-national units and stronger in others, where COVID-19 growth rates only decreased due to the implementation of mandatory stay-at-home orders. The heterogeneity in the effect of mandatory stay-at-home orders on the spread of COVID-19 is challenging from a scientific and political point of view.

This paper examines the extent to which research has been published open access in response to two global threats: COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate change. We compare the accessibility of COVID-19 content versus SDG literature using the Dimensions database between 2000 and 2021, classifying each publication as gold open access, green, bronze, hybrid, or closed. We found that 79.9% of COVID-19 research papers published between January 2020 and December 2021 was open access, with 39.0% published with gold open access licenses. In contrast, just 55.7% of SDG papers were open access in the same time period, with only 36.0% published with gold open access licenses. Papers related to the climate emergency overall had the second-lowest level of open access at just 55.5%. Papers published by the largest for-profit publishers that committed to both the SDG Publishers Compact and climate actions were not predominantly published open access. The paper highlights the need for continued efforts to promote open access publishing to facilitate scientific research and technological development to address global challenges. One-Sentence SummaryIn contrast to COVID-19 papers, research on UN Sustainable Development Goals including the climate emergency have not been made open access by leading global science publishers despite their corporate commitments to sustainability and climate action.

Citizen science plays an increasingly important role in generating scientific knowledge and supporting environmental and social action. However, its potential to address complex global challenges remains underutilised. This study explores how to improve citizen science by involving the public in all stages of scientific research. Using participatory research methods, we conducted online surveys and group discussions with researchers, citizen scientists, and Indigenous people. Thematic coding was used to identify key challenges, opportunities, and best practices to enhance citizen science initiatives. Additionally, nine case studies were reported using the Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) reporting tool. The study identifies key strategies for enhancing participant engagement and retention in citizen science initiatives. Findings underscore the importance of inclusive, evidence-informed approaches such as targeted outreach, fair compensation, tailored support, and co-creation practices. Ensuring data quality and fostering trust require adherence to FAIR data principles, transparent validation and sharing processes, and the establishment of ethical research partnerships. Persistent challenges include short-term funding, which undermines long-term project sustainability, and the lack of centralized support for ethics and project management. Formal recognition of citizen scientists through co-authorship, standardized training, and professional development opportunities can further strengthen involvement and build capacity. Finally, emerging technologies--including AI and open data platforms--present opportunities to scale and improve efficiency, provided they are implemented with appropriate ethical safeguards and investment. Drawing together these insights, we provide 10 actionable recommendations for citizen science in the 21st century. These highlight the importance of embedding citizen science in national research infrastructure, education, and policy, alongside consistent evaluation and reporting, to improve its inclusivity, longevity, and impact. We conclude by arguing that as the world confronts climate change, public health crises, and biodiversity loss, broader public involvement in science is key for equitable, efficient and evidence-informed responses.

Several metrics exists to evaluate the impact of publications and researchers, but most are based on citation counts, which usually fail to capture the temporal aspect of citations. Time to first citation represents a useful metric for research evaluation, and informs the speed at which scientific knowledge is disseminated through the scientific community. Understanding which factors affect such metrics is important as they impact resource allocation and career progression, besides influencing knowledge promotion across disciplines. Many ecological works rely on species identity, which is the coin of taxonomy. Despite its importance, taxonomy is a discipline in crisis lacking staff, funds and prestige, which ultimately may affect the evaluation and dissemination of taxonomic works. We used a time-to-event analysis to investigate whether taxonomic, socioeconomic, and scientometric factors influence first citation speed across hundreds of ecological and taxonomic articles. Time to first citation differed greatly between these areas. Ecological studies were first cited much faster than taxonomic studies. Multitaxa articles received first citations earlier than studies focused on single major taxonomic groups. Article length and h-index among authors were negatively correlated with time to first citation, while the number of authors, number of countries, and Gross Domestic Product was unimportant. Knowledge dissemination is faster for lengthy, multitaxa, and ecological articles relative to their respective counterparts, as well as for articles with highly prolific authors. We stress that using several unrelated metrics is desirable when evaluating research from different-and even related-disciplines, particularly in the context of professional progression and grant allocation.

Words are the building blocks of science. As our understanding of the world progresses, scientific disciplines naturally enrich their specialized vocabulary (jargon). However, in the era of interdisciplinarity, the use of jargon may hinder effective communication amongst scientists that do not share a common linguistic background. The question of how jargon limits the transmission of scientific knowledge has long been debated, but rarely addressed quantitatively. We explored the relationship between the use of jargon and citations using 21,486 articles focusing on cave research, a multidisciplinary field particularly prone to terminological specialization and where linguistic disagreement among peers is frequent. We demonstrate that the use of jargon in the title and abstract significantly reduces the number of citations a paper receives. Given that these elements are the hook to readers, we urge scientists to restrict jargon to sections of the paper where its use is unavoidable.

Lakes play a pivotal role in ecological and biogeochemical processes and have been described as sentinels of environmental change. Assessing lake health across large geographic scales is critical to predict the stability of their ecosystem services and their vulnerability to anthropogenic disturbances. The LakePulse research network is tasked with the assessment of lake health across gradients of land use on a continental scale. Bacterial communities are an integral and rapidly responding component of lake ecosystems, yet large-scale responses to anthropogenic activity remain elusive. Here, we assess the ecological impact of land use on bacterial communities from 220 lakes covering more than 660 000 km2 across Eastern Canada. Alteration of communities was found on every level examined including richness, community composition, community network structure and indicator taxa of high or low lake water quality. Specifically, increasing anthropogenic impact within the watershed lowered richness mediated by changes in salinity. Likewise, community composition was significantly correlated with agriculture and urban development within a watershed. Interaction networks showed decreasing complexity and fewer keystone taxa in impacted lakes. Together, these findings point to vast bacterial community changes of largely unknown consequences induced by human activity within lake watersheds. Significance StatementLakes play central roles in Earths ecosystems and are sentinels of climate change and other watershed alterations. Assessing lake health across large geographic scales is therefore critical to predict ecosystem stability and lake vulnerability to anthropogenic disturbances. In this context, the LakePulse research network is tasked with a large-scale assessment of lake health across Canada. Bacterial communities are an integral and rapidly responding component of lake ecosystems, yet their large-scale responses to anthropogenic activity remain unknown. Here, we assessed the anthropogenic impact on bacterial communities of over 200 lakes located across large environmental gradients. We found communities to be impacted on every level investigated, indicating that human activities within watersheds cause vast bacterial community changes of largely unknown consequences.

What, if any, dividends do agencies reap from collaboration with a highly reputable agency, such as the FDA? Utilizing a dataset covering 30 U.S. federal agencies over a period of 34 years (1980-2013), we estimate the short and long-term reputational effects of interagency collaboration. Collaboration is measured by the number of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) in effect between each agency and the FDA, while agency reputation is assessed using an automated measure of media-coverage valence (positive/negative tone) for each agency-year. To account for potential reverse and reciprocal causality, we utilize cross-lagged fixed-effects models. We find evidence of moderate rises in reputation due to increased collaboration with the FDA. These effects persist significantly for two years, before decaying to null after four years. Employing similar analyses, we furthermore estimate reversed causality - of reputation on the level of consequent collaboration - finding no evidence of such effects. Research SupportMoshe Maor and Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Israel Science Foundation under grant 1002/11.

Both citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success. We aimed to evaluate what proportion of the most-cited USA-based biomedical scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than not funded ones. We linked a Scopus-based database on top-cited researchers (n=75,316 USA-based) and the NIH RePORTER database of 33 biomedical federal agencies (n=204,603 grant records) with matching based on name and institution. The 40,887 USA-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. The proportion of USA-based top-cited biomedical scientists (based on career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 63% for any funding (1996-2022), 21% for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14% for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 65%, 31%, and 21%, when top-cited scientists based on recent single year impact were considered. There was large variability across scientific subfields. No subfield had more than 31% of its top-cited USA-based scientists (career-long impact) currently funded. Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than non-funded top-cited scientists, e.g. mean (median) 14,420 (8983) versus 8,445 (4613) (p<0.001) and a substantial difference remained (, after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields. Overall, biomedical federal funding has offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists have current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

The practice of designating two or more authors as equal contributors (EC) on a scientific publication is increasingly common as a form of sharing credit. However, EC authors are often unclearly attributed on CVs or citation engines, and it is unclear how research teams determine author order within an EC listing. In response to studies showing that male authors were more likely to be placed first in an EC listing, the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) required that authors explain the reasons for author order beginning in 2020. In this study we analyze data from over 2500 ASM publications to see how this policy affected gender bias and how research teams are making decisions on author order. Data on publications from 2018-2021 show that gender bias was largely nonsignificant both before and after authors were asked by ASM to provide an EC statement. The most likely reasons for EC order included alphabetical order, seniority, and chance, although there were differences for publications from different geographic regions. However, many research teams used unique methods in order selection, highlighting the importance of EC statements to provide clarity for readers, funding agencies, and tenure committees.

Reproducibility is a significant concern in scientific research and complex methods like quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) demand stringent reporting standards to ensure that the methods are reproducible, data are sound, and conclusions are trustworthy. Although the MIQE (Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments) guidelines were introduced in 2009 to improve qPCR reporting, a 2013 study identified ongoing deficiencies that hinder reproducibility. To further investigate the transparency and completeness of qPCR reporting, we systematically assessed articles published in the top 20 journals in genetics and heredity (n=186) and plant sciences (n=246) that used qPCR. Our analysis revealed frequent omissions and inadequate specification of critical information necessary for evaluating and replicating qPCR experiments. RNA integrity, along with assessment methods and instruments used to assess it, are seldom reported. Although primer sequences are often disclosed, names and accession numbers of housekeeping genes are frequently omitted. Additionally, essential details about RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR, such as kit names, catalog numbers, and reagent information, are often missing. Our findings underscore the urgent need for improved reporting practices in qPCR experiments, emphasizing quality controls, detailed descriptions of reagents and materials, and greater analytical transparency. Addressing these reporting deficiencies is crucial for enhancing the reproducibility and evaluating the trustworthiness of qPCR research. Potential solutions include encouraging authors to cite protocols published in online repositories, providing reporting templates, or developing automated tools to check reporting compliance.

Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa NZ) is an example of a high-income country with high environmental impacts and health consequences associated with its food system. These impacts can be partially addressed by enabling dietary transitions to healthy and sustainable diets. The EAT-Lancet Commission proposed an internationally acceptable reference diet to promote planetary health. We aimed to work with contributors to develop policy actions to support New Zealanders to transition to healthy sustainable diets. These policies were further examined according to the World Cancer Research Fund, NOURISHING and High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition Food System frameworks. Semi-structured interviews (13) and focus groups (6) were conducted with contributors from government agencies, industry, academics, community and rural and urban tangata whenua communities. All interviews and focus groups were first transcribed using Otter.aI then reviewed by the research team. Thematic analysis was used to identify and summarise each policy. 111 policies were suggested across the NOURISHING framework policy domains: 11 (10%) in behaviour change communication; 35 (32%) in the food environment; and 65 (59%) addressing the food system. Participants spoke of behaviour change communication policies of education, awareness campaigns, and workshops such as cooking classes. Food environment policies targeted supermarkets and food retail, local food environments, and government standards and regulations including food taxes and subsidies. Policies in the food system area looked at food waste, supporting local food production and government structures and support. Contributors identified policies that advocate and support planetary health. Key policy insights{square} The majority of policies identified by contributors focused on food systems and specifically food production {square}Many contributors highlighted existing policies or initiatives already implemented locally and nationally but needed further support {square}There is limited research demonstrating the effectiveness of policies and initiatives addressing sustainable food systems in Aotearoa New Zealand {square}Funding, resources and research of existing local initiatives and policies supporting sustainable food systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and globally are urgently required

Addressing anthropogenic impacts on aquatic ecosystems is a focus of lake management. Controlling phosphorus and nitrogen can mitigate these impacts, but determining management effectiveness requires long-term datasets. Recent analysis of the LAke multi-scaled GeOSpatial and temporal database for the Northeast (LAGOSNE) United States found stable water quality in the northeastern and midwestern United States, however, sub-regional trends may be obscured. We analyze a sub-regional (i.e., 3000 km2) trend with the University of Rhode Islands Watershed Watch Volunteer Monitoring Program (URIWW) dataset. URIWW has collected water quality data on Rhode Island lakes and reservoirs for over 25 years. The LAGOSNE and URIWW datasets allow for comparison of water quality trends at regional and sub-regional extents, respectively. We assess regional (LAGOSNE) and state (URIWW) trends with yearly mean anomalies calculated on a per-station basis. Sub-regionally, temperature and chlorophyll a increased from 1993 to 2016. Total nitrogen shows a weak increase driven by low years in the early 1990s. Total phosphorus and the nitrogen:phosphorus ratio (N:P) were stable. At the regional scale, the LAGOSNE dataset shows similar trends to prior studies of the LAGOSNE with chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and N:P all stable over time. In short, algal biomass, as measured by chlorophyll a in Rhode Island lakes and reservoirs is increasing, despite stability in total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio. This analysis suggests an association between lake temperature and primary production. Additionally, we demonstrate both the value of long-term monitoring programs, like URIWW, for identifying trends in environmental condition, and the utility of site-specific anomalies for analyzing for long-term water quality trends.

ImportanceRetractions are rare but increasingly common in scientific publishing. Understanding whether gender disparities exist in retraction rates, especially among top-performing scientists, may inform broader efforts to promote equity and research integrity. ObjectiveTo assess gender disparities in the likelihood of having retracted publications among highly cited and all other authors, and to explore how these vary across scientific fields, countries, and publication age cohorts. DesignCross-sectional bibliometric analysis incorporating retraction data into Scopus-based databases of top-cited scientists (top 2%) and all authors with [&ge;]5 publications. Retraction data were obtained from Retraction Watch and linked with author-level citation metrics. SettingGlobal, science-wide analysis using data from authors in all disciplines indexed in Scopus. ParticipantsA total of 10,361,367 authors with [&ge;]5 publications were included; 217,097 were among the top 2% most-cited authors. Gender was confidently assigned using NamSor for 8,267,888 authors. Authors with uncertain gender were excluded from gender-specific analyses. Main Outcomes and MeasuresGender-specific retraction rates and the relative propensity (R) of women vs men to have at least one retraction, overall and stratified by citation status, field, country income level, publication age cohort and publication volumes. ResultsAmong highly cited authors, retraction rates were 3.3% in men and 2.9% in women; among all authors, rates were 0.7% for both genders. Differences varied by field: womens rates were at least one-third lower than mens (R < 0.67) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (R{square}< {square}0.67), but higher (R{square}> {square}1.33) in Economics, Engineering, and Information and Communication Technologies. Among highly cited authors, younger cohorts showed increasingly higher rates among men (4.2% men vs. 3.0% women in those starting to publish in 2002-2011; 8.7% men vs. 4.9% women in those starting post-2011). Country-level differences among highly cited authors were pronounced in some countries, as in Pakistan (28.7% men vs. 14.3% women). Among all authors, country-level gender differences were small. Conclusions and RelevanceGender differences in retraction rates exist but are modest. Field, country, and publication volume are stronger correlates. Structural and contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns and warrant further investigation. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSAre there gender disparities in the likelihood of having retracted publications among highly cited scientists and the broader scientific population? FindingsIn this cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of over 10 million authors with at least 5 publications, including 217,097 top-cited scientists, retraction rates were slightly lower in women than in men. Gender differences were modest compared with disparities by country, field, and citation volume, but varied across disciplines and publication age cohorts. MeaningGender is a minor correlate of retraction, and structural or contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns in science.

Background/AimsClinical trial funders in the United States have the opportunity to promote transparency, reduce research waste, and prevent publication bias by adopting policies that require grantees to appropriately preregister trials and report their results, as well as monitor trialists registration and reporting compliance. This paper has three aims: a) to assess to what extent the clinical trial policies and monitoring systems of the 14 largest public and philanthropic medical research funders in the United States meet global best practice benchmarks as stipulated by the WHO Joint Statement;[1] b) to assess whether public or philanthropic funders have adopted more WHO Joint Statement elements on average; and c) to assess whether and how funders policies refer to CONSORT standards for clinical trial outcome reporting in academic journals. MethodsThe funders were assessed using an 11-item scoring tool based on WHO Joint Statement benchmarks. These 11 items fell into four categories: trial registration, academic publication, monitoring, and sanctions. An additional item captured whether and how funders referred to CONSORT within their trial policies. Each funder was independently assessed by 2-3 researchers. Funders were contacted to flag possible errors and omissions. Ambiguous or difficult to score items were settled by an independent adjudicator. FindingsOur cross-sectional study of the 14 largest public and philanthropic funders in the US finds that on average, funders have only implemented 4.1/11 (37%) of World Health Organization best practices in clinical trial transparency. The most frequently adopted requirement was open access publishing (14/14 funders), and the least frequently adopted were (1) requiring trial ID to appear in all publications (2/14 funders, 14%) and (2) making compliance reports public (2/14 funders, 14%). Public funders, on average, adopted more policy elements (5.3/11 items, 48%) than philanthropic funders (2.8/11, 25%). Only one funders policy documents mentioned the CONSORT statement. ConclusionsThere is significant variation between the number of best practice policy items adopted by medical research funders in the United States. Many funders fell significantly short of WHO Joint Statement benchmarks. Each funder could benefit from policy revision and strengthening.