Transparency in Biotechnology and Food Research Journals: A comparative analysis of editorial policies based on COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ principles

Introduction: The issue of transparency in the editorial policies of scientific journals has become increasingly significant in the context of advancing international open access standards, as regulated by COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ principles. The openness and accessibility of information on a journal’s website, along with the proper design of publications themselves, determine not only the quality and reproducibility of research but also the broader scientific community’s trust in the journal’s editorial policy. However, the practical implementation of transparency depends heavily on the consistent application of stated principles at the level of author requirements and publications.
Purpose: To assess how well COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ principles are reflected in the editorial policies of international (Scopus Q1) and Russian scientific journals in the field of biotechnology and food research, with particular focus on openness about research methodologies, provision of raw data, and website design that ensures transparency at all stages of the publication process.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 international journals indexed in Scopus (Q1) and 30 Russian journals (including those in Scopus and the highest-ranked by RSCI data) were analyzed. The study examined official journal websites, editorial policies, author guidelines, as well as the actual requirements for methodological disclosure and raw data provision. Additional attention was paid to site design elements, including the availability of detailed instructions and templates, as well as how each journal’s open access policy is presented through its interface and structure.
Results: It was found that international journals and some Russian journals indexed in Scopus demonstrate a more comprehensive level of transparency: standards for methodological disclosure, publication of raw data, and adherence to COPE, OASPA, WAME, and DOAJ principles are explicitly prescribed and consistently applied. These journals offer clear instructions on their websites, emphasizing the need for detailed methods descriptions and open data access. In contrast, among Russian journals not indexed by international databases, there is variability in the implementation of declared principles: despite efforts to update editorial policies, some journals do not fully translate transparency requirements into practice, which is evident in incomplete methodological information and limited online information regarding open access principles.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate a positive trend in the integration of open access and transparency principles into the editorial policies of journals in biotechnology and food research. The process is carried out most consistently in international journals and Russian journals indexed in international scientific databases. Nevertheless, further development of transparency requires standardizing requirements for methodological descriptions and open data, as well as fully reflecting these standards through the journal’s website design and layout, thereby strengthening the scientific community’s trust and enhancing the quality of published research.

1. Aguinis H., Ramani R. S., Alabduljader N. What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals. 2018;12(1):83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011

2. DeCelles K. A., Howard-Grenville J., Tihanyi L. Improving the transparency of empirical research published in AMJ. Academy of Management Journal. 2021;64(4):1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.4004

3. Weiss M., Nair L. B., Hoorani B. H., Gibbert M., Hoegl M. Transparency of reporting practices in quantitative field studies: The transparency sweet spot for article citations. Journal of Informetrics. 2023;17(2):101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101396

4. Moher D., Bouter L., Kleinert S., Glasziou P., Sham M. H., Barbour V. et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology. 2020;18(7):e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

5. Malički M., Aalbersberg I. J., Bouter L., Mulligan A., Ter Riet G. Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0270054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270054

6. Mzhelsky A. A. Data and reproducibility. Interpretation of international guidelines and journals’ best policies and practices. Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(2):143–165. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-53

7. Kosycheva M. A., Khorokhorina G. A. Data repositories: theory and practice. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2020;2(2):7–11. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2020.i2.s393

8. Tikhonova E. V., Shlenskaya N. M. The role of data repositories and issues of ethical use. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2021;(2):8–14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2021.209

9. Nosek B. A., Alter G., Banks G. C., Borsboom D., Bowman S. D., Breckler S. J. et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015;348(6242):1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

10. Fennell C., Cousijn H. Supporting data openness, transparency & sharing: Elsevier signs up to TOP guidelines & develops new data-sharing guidelines for journals. Elsevier Connect. September 4, 2017. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/supporting-data-openness-transparency-and-sharing (accessed: 10.12.2024).

11. Announcement: Where are the data? Nature. 2016;537:138. https://doi.org/10.1038/537138a

12. Ellaway R. H. Disclaimers. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2023;28(4):1017–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10286-z

13. Choi Y. J., Choi H. W., Kim S. Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. Science Editing. 2020;7(1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.186

14. Choi H. W., Choi Y. J., Kim S. Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in academic society published journals. Science Editing. 2019;6(2):112–121. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.171

15. Sathyanarayana Rao T. S., Tharyan P. Editorial policies aimed at improving the transparency and validity of published research. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;53(3):183–186. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.86793

16. Harrington E. G. Chapter 7– Open Science. In: Harrington E. G. (ed). Academic Libraries and Public Engagement with Science and Technology. Elsevier Ltd.; 2019, pp. 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102124-8.00007-6

17. Tarkang E. E., Kweku M., Zotor F. B. Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa. 2017;8(1):723. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2017.723

18. Moskaleva O. V., Akoev M. A. Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: The Publishers. Scholarly Research and Information. 2020;3(2-3):131–154. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2020-3-2-3-131-154

19. Chung Y. Topics of major current interest in scholarly editing and publishing based on the content analysis of selected journals. Science Editing. 2015;2(2):59–62. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.45

20. Tikhonova E. V., Mekeko N. M. Conflict of Interest: Author, Reviewer, Editor. Journal of Employment and Career. 2023;2(3):4–15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.56414/jeac.2023.3.40

21. Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A. Journal data accessibility policies: Challenges and opportunities. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2024;6(4):6–20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2024.i4.s251

22. Savitskaya Yu. P., Filippova I. A. The concept of open science as the basis for the development of modern society. Sociology. 2022;(2):69–75. (In Russ.)

23. Abalkina A. A. How to avoid hijacked journals? Recommendations for journals and authors.

24. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2021;3(3):183–192. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.3.9

25. Kirillova O. V. Significance and Basic Affiliation Requirements in Scientific Publications. Science Editor and Publisher. 2016;1(1-4):32–42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2016-1-4-32-42

26. Wu D., Lu X., Li J., Li J. Does the institutional diversity of editorial boards increase journal quality? The case economics field. Scientometrics. 2020;124(2):1579–1597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03505-6

27. García-Carpintero E., Granadino B., Plaza L. M. The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):799–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0199-3

28. Prager E. M., Chambers K. E., Plotkin J. L., McArthur D. L., Bandrowski A. E., Bansal N. et al. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain and Behavior. 2019;9(1):e01141. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1141

29. Linder C., Farahbakhsh S. Unfolding the black box of questionable research practices: Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable practices? Business Ethics Quarterly. 2020;30(3):335–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.52

30. Matarese V. Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of Biomedical Research Journals: A COMPARATIVE STUDY of Italian and UK Journals. PLoS One. 2008;3(7):e2512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002512

31. Kirillova O. V. How to arrange an article and scientific journal to avoid indexing errors in international scientometric databases. Science Editor and Publisher. 2018;3(1-2):52–72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2018-1-2-52-72

32. Kirillova O. V. On measures aimed at supporting Russian scholarly journals for increased credibility and international recognition. Science Editor and Publisher. 2019;4(3-4):126–130. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-126-130