Perceptions of Open Science in the Editorial and Peer Review Process: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Journal Editors

Background: Open science (OS) offers opportunities to address challenges in the editorial and peer review processes of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) journals. This study assessed TCIM journal editors' perceptions of OS and the perceived benefits and challenges of integrating OS into editorial and peer review processes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to editors-in-chief, associate editors, and editorial board members of 115 TCIM journals. The survey examined demographics, current use and familiarity with OS, perceived advantages and obstacles, and future perspectives on OS in academic publishing. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were examined using thematic analysis. Results: A total of 267 respondents completed the survey, with most identifying as faculty members or academic research staff (n = 201/335, 60.0%). Most respondents were familiar (n = 128/212, 60.3%) or very familiar (n = 64/212, 30.2%) with OS practices, although many had received no formal OS training (n = 94/210, 44.8%). Respondents were most familiar with open access (n = 131/213, 61.5%) and preprints (n = 92/211, 43.6%). Among the seven OS practices examined, open access was viewed most favorably, with many considering it "very important" (n = 97/206, 47.1%) and strongly agreeing that it enhances the accessibility of research findings (n = 118/195, 60.5%). Conclusion: Most respondents were familiar with OS but held varying perceptions regarding the importance, advantages, and disadvantages of different OS practices. These findings may inform the development and implementation of evidence-based practices and policies that meet the needs of the TCIM research community.