{"paper_id":"01aeb267-bea2-415a-9950-17a68efbd2c2","body_text":"Funders’ expectations for open science in cardiovascular research: A Scoping review of the 1 \nlargest cardiovascular research funders 2 \nAnna Catharina Vieira Armond 1*, Al Mamoune Alaoui 1, David Moher 2,3, Jean Rouleau 4, Kelly 3 \nD. Cobey 1,3 4 \n1 University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 5 \n2 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 6 \nOttawa, Canada. 7 \n3 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, 8 \nCanada. 9 \n4 Montreal Heart Institute, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 10 \n 11 \nORCID 12 \nAnna Catharina Vieira Armond - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7121-5354 13 \nAl Mamoune Alaoui - https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6643-5405 14 \nDavid Moher - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206 15 \nJean Rouleau - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5353-3877 16 \nKelly D. Cobey - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-1686 17 \n 18 \nCorresponding author: aarmond@ottawaheart.ca 19 \n 20 \nWord count: 422721 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n1 \n \nAbstract 22 \nOpen science practices, including data sharing, open access, and prospective study registration, 23 \nhave been increasingly recognized to improve transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in 24 \nresearch, yet their uptake and implementation by cardiovascular research funders is unclear. We 25 \nconducted a scoping review of publicly available policies, guidance, and grant instructions from 26 \n12 members of the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum to assess expectations, 27 \nmonitoring, and support for open science in cardiovascular research. We included 105 documents 28 \nfrom 9 funders; no relevant documents were identified for 3 funders. Data sharing (75%) and 29 \nopen access (67%) were the most common mandates by funders, followed by prospective 30 \nregistration (50%). Requirements for other practices, including code sharing, use of reporting 31 \nguidelines, preprints, and open peer review, were uncommon. Monitoring compliance was 32 \ninconsistent, with many funders not specifying any mechanisms, even for widely required 33 \npractices. Where available, support was most often provided through financial assistance, 34 \nguidance, or infrastructure, particularly for open access, data sharing, and patient or public 35 \ninvolvement. These findings suggest that while cardiovascular funders are engaging with open 36 \nscience, policies remain uneven in scope, monitoring, and support. Navigating the open science 37 \nimplementation gap in cardiovascular research will be essential to reap the benefits of 38 \ntransparency and innovation, only possible through the sharing of information and data.   39 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n2 \n \nIntroduction 40 \nOpen science refers to a broad set of practices that aim to make scientific research more 41 \ntransparent, accessible, collaborative, and reproducible. While there is no single consensus on 42 \nwhat open science entails, the practices include, but are not limited to, sharing research data, 43 \ncode, and materials; prospectively registering studies; publishing in open access; using reporting 44 \nguidelines; and engaging in open peer review (1). Globally, open science has gained momentum 45 \nas a strategy to foster research integrity, collaboration, and accelerate scientific discovery across 46 \ndisciplines, including biomedical research (1,2). Cardiovascular research, like many other fields, 47 \nfaces growing demands to improve the transparency and reproducibility of its research outputs 48 \n(3). Prior audits show that most cardiology publications do not make data, protocols, or statistical 49 \nanalysis scripts publicly available (4), and present inconsistent reporting (5), echoing broader 50 \nconcerns about research waste and reproducibility (6,7). Open science practices offer a potential 51 \nsolution to these challenges, but their uptake remains variable (8), and implementation is often 52 \ninfluenced by institutional and systemic factors, including the policies and expectations of 53 \nresearch funders. These issues are especially pressing given the global burden of cardiovascular 54 \ndisease and the imperative to translate research findings efficiently into clinical care (9). 55 \nFunders play a critical role in shaping research practices by setting requirements and providing 56 \nincentives for grant recipients. By mandating or recommending open science practices, funders 57 \ncan promote a culture of transparency and reproducibility. Most previous analyses have focused 58 \non general biomedical funders or specific practices, such as data sharing (10), often neglecting 59 \nthe cardiovascular research landscape as a distinct domain with its own needs and challenges. 60 \nFor example, an international survey of 198 cardiovascular researchers (8) reported that many 61 \nparticipants had limited formal training in open science: 52% learned largely on the job, and 36% 62 \nhad received no training at all. Respondents indicated that additional funding and institutional 63 \nsupport were critical to adopting open science practices, with funders seen as key interest holders 64 \nto influence their behaviours. Little is known about how cardiovascular research funders are 65 \naddressing open science in their policies and guidance, and to what degree there is coordination 66 \ninternationally across cardiovascular funders.  67 \nTo address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify and assess publicly available 68 \npolicies and guidance related to open science practices among funders that are members of the 69 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n3 \n \nGlobal Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum (GCRFF), a global partnership of 12 major 70 \ncardiovascular research funders (11). Our objectives were to (1) map the extent to which open 71 \nscience practices are addressed in these funders’ official documents, (2) classify their 72 \nexpectations (e.g., mandated, recommended), and (3) assess the types of support and monitoring 73 \nmechanisms provided. By synthesizing this information, we aim to inform future efforts to align 74 \nopen science policies across funders and support their implementation in cardiovascular research. 75 \nMethods 76 \nProtocol and registration 77 \nWe conducted a scoping review to identify and analyze publicly available policies and guidance 78 \nrelated to open science practices from cardiovascular research funders. This review followed the 79 \nJBI methodology for scoping reviews and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension 80 \nfor Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (12). The study protocol was registered prospectively 81 \n(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9PZTA). 82 \nEligibility criteria 83 \nWe included documents that addressed at least one open science practice (e.g., open access, open 84 \ndata, prospective registration, preprints) and were publicly available from cardiovascular 85 \nresearch funders. Eligible document types included official policies, guidance documents, grant 86 \nrequirements, application instructions, and relevant web pages. Documents were included if 87 \nwritten in English or if a reliable translation could be produced using DeepL Translate. Opinion 88 \npieces, blogs, and non-official funder communications were excluded. 89 \nInformation sources 90 \nWe focused on members of the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum (GCRFF), an 91 \ninternational coalition of 12 major cardiovascular research funders: 92 \n1. American Heart Association (USA) 93 \n2. British Heart Foundation (UK) 94 \n3. Danish Heart Foundation 95 \n4. Dutch Heart Foundation (Hartstichting) 96 \n5. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) 97 \n6. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada 98 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n4 \n \n7. Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (CIHR, Canada) 99 \n8. Leducq Foundation 100 \n9. National Heart Foundation of Australia 101 \n10. National Heart Foundation of New Zealand 102 \n11. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH-NHLBI, USA) 103 \n12. Swiss Heart Foundation 104 \n 105 \nWe defined open science as an umbrella term encompassing practices that promote transparency, 106 \nreproducibility, accessibility, and collaboration in research. Documents were included if they 107 \nreferred to at least one of the following practices: open access, open data, data management, 108 \nopen code, open materials, prospective registration, transparent reporting, reproducibility 109 \npractices, preprints, citizen science (including patient and public involvement), open peer review, 110 \nor researcher identifiers (e.g., ORCID). Table 1 presents the descriptions of each of the 111 \ninvestigated practices. 112 \nWe restricted our analysis to cardiovascular research funders and included only documents 113 \navailable on official websites, without date restrictions. 114 \nTable 1. Open science practices descriptions 115 \nOpen science practice Description \nOpen access The practice of making scholarly work freely available online, allowing anyone \nto access, read, and use it for lawful purposes without financial, legal, or \ntechnical barriers \nData sharing The practice of making the underlying datasets used to generate research \nfindings accessible to other researchers, policymakers, and the public, either \nopenly or under controlled conditions \nCode sharing Code sharing in science refers to the practice of making the scripts, software, or \ncomputational workflows used in a study openly available to others. Sharing \ncode allows peers to reproduce analyses, validate findings, and adapt existing \nmethods for new research questions \nProspective registration The practice of publicly registering a study’s protocol, including research \nquestions, outcomes, design, and planned analyses, before data collection or \nexamination \nPreprint Preprints refer to scientific manuscripts or research findings that are made \npublicly available in advance of formal publication, typically referred to as a \nform of Green Open Access \nPublic and Patient \nInvolvement \nPublic and Patient Involvement refers to the active partnership of patients, \ncaregivers, and members of the public in the research process. Rather than being \nthe subjects of research, they contribute to shaping research priorities, study \ndesign, conduct, and dissemination \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n5 \n \nData Management Plans Research data management (RDM) involves the systematic organization, \nstorage, documentation, and preservation of research data throughout its \nlifecycle. DMPs are formal documents outlining how data will be collected, \nmanaged, shared, and preserved \nOpen peer review Open peer review is an umbrella term for peer review models that aim to \nincrease transparency in the evaluation of scholarly work. It can include \npractices such as revealing reviewer identities, publishing review reports \nalongside articles, allowing public comments, or enabling authors and reviewers \nto interact directly \nUse of ORCID Using a unique digital identifier for researchers that links their professional \nactivities, publications, and datasets. ORCID enhances transparency, ensures \nproper attribution, and facilitates tracking of contributions across projects and \nplatforms \nRigor and Reproducibility Ensuring that research is conducted with robust, transparent, and unbiased \nmethods so that results can be independently verified. Rigor refers to the strict \napplication of scientific principles and methods, while reproducibility means \nthat findings can be consistently obtained when experiments or analyses are \nrepeated under the same conditions \nMaterial sharing Material sharing refers to the practice of making physical research resources, \nsuch as biological samples, cell lines, reagents, instruments, or other study \nmaterials, available to other researchers \nUse of reporting guidelines Tools or instructions designed to help authors transparently report research \nusing explicit methods. These can take the form of checklists, flowcharts, or \nstructured text to ensure clarity, completeness, and consistency in reporting \n 116 \nSearch strategy 117 \nTwo reviewers independently conducted searches between January and April 2025. Searches 118 \nwere performed on funders’ websites using internal search tools and supplemented with Google 119 \nqueries combining funder names with targeted keywords (e.g., “open science,” “open data,” 120 \n“data sharing,” “preprints,” “preregistration,” “reporting guideline,” “ORCID,” “patient 121 \ninvolvement,” “open access,” and “reproducibility”). The first 100 Google hits per funder were 122 \nscreened for relevance. 123 \nData extraction and analysis 124 \nWe developed a customized data extraction form and piloted it on five documents to ensure 125 \nclarity and consistency. One reviewer extracted all data, and a second reviewer conducted quality 126 \ncontrol on all records. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or with input from a third 127 \nreviewer when necessary. Data extraction was performed using Airtable, a cloud-based database 128 \nplatform. 129 \nWe extracted the following information: 130 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n6 \n \n1. Funder name and country 131 \n2. Document type (e.g., policy, grant call, guidance) 132 \n3. Year of publication or last update 133 \n4. Cardiovascular research focus (if specified) 134 \n5. Open science practices mentioned 135 \n6. Whether practices were required, recommended, mentioned without further detail, or not 136 \nmentioned 137 \n7. Monitoring or compliance mechanisms 138 \n8. Forms of support (e.g., training, financial resources, infrastructure) 139 \nSome funders developed multiple documents corresponding to different funding opportunities, 140 \nwhich varied in their expectations for open science practices. For example, one funder’s clinical 141 \ntrial program explicitly required data sharing, while its early-career investigator program only 142 \nrecommended it. To ensure consistency, we used an inclusive coding approach: if any eligible 143 \ndocument from a funder mandated a given practice, we classified that practice as “Required” for 144 \nthe funder overall, even if other documents only recommended it or did not mention it. This 145 \napproach reflects the presence of at least one formal requirement within the funder's policy 146 \nlandscape. 147 \nQuantitative data were summarized descriptively using counts and proportions. For qualitative 148 \ndata, we conducted a thematic analysis following the approach by Braun and Clarke (13). Two 149 \nreviewers independently reviewed and coded the extracted policy text, refined the codes through 150 \ndiscussion, and organized them into overarching themes. Any disagreements were resolved with 151 \ninput from an additional reviewer. Thematic synthesis was conducted using Microsoft Excel 152 \n(RRID: SCR_016137). 153 \nResults 154 \nWe identified 145 documents from 11 (of the 12) cardiovascular research funders, across 9 155 \ncountries, in the GCRFF, based on searches on the funders’ websites and Google. For 1 funder, 156 \nno potentially relevant documents could be located. After duplicates were removed, a total of 157 \n142 documents were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 38 documents were excluded for not 158 \nmeeting the inclusion criteria (e.g., documents lacked relevance to open science expectations or 159 \nStudies included in review \n(n = ) \nReports of included studies \n(n = ) \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n7 \n \ndid not pertain to research funding). This resulted in 105 documents from 9 funders included in 160 \nthis review (Figure 1).  The three funders where we did not locate relevant documents were: the 161 \nLeducq Foundation, the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand, and the Swiss Heart 162 \nFoundation. 163 \nMost documents were classified as General Guidance or Instructions (59, 55%), followed by 164 \nPolicy or Formal Statement (25, 23%), Grant Guidelines (12, 11%), Grant Calls (7, 6%), and 165 \nOther (5, 5%). Where available, most documents were published or updated in 2024. 166 \n 167 \n 168 \n 169 \nFigure 1. Flow-chart of funders and documents included in the scoping review. 170 \n 171 \n 172 \nOpen science practices 173 \nWe investigated 12 cardiovascular research funders for their expectations on open science 174 \npractices. To calculate the proportion of funders addressing each open science practice, all 12 175 \nfunders were included in the denominator. However, the three funders without any documents 176 \nwere not assigned classifications (e.g., “Required,” “Recommended,” or “Not Mentioned”). The 177 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFunders screened (n = 12) \nFunders without retrieved documents (n = 1) \nFunders with included documents (n = 9) \nDocuments included in review (n = 105) \n \n- General guidance (n = 59) \n- Policy documents or statements (n = 25) \n- Grant guidelines (n = 12) \n- Grant calls (n = 7) \n- Other (n = 5) \nDocuments excluded (n = 40) \n- Duplicates excluded (n = 4) \n- Documents excluded for not meeting the \ninclusion criteria (n = 31) \n- Outdated documents that have been \nreplaced (n=5) \n \nFunders whose retrieved documents were all \nexcluded (n = 2) \nFunders with retrieved documents (n = 11) \nDocuments screened (n = 145) \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n8 \n \nextent to which various practices were required, recommended, mentioned, not mentioned, 178 \nmonitored, or supported is presented in Figure 1. 179 \nOpen science expectations 180 \nThe most commonly required practices were Data Sharing (9 funders, 75%) and Open Access (8 181 \nfunders, 67%), followed by Prospective Registration (6 funders, 50%). Data Management Plans 182 \nwere required by 4 funders (33%) and recommended by 1 (8%). Similarly, Public and Patient 183 \nInvolvement was required by 4 funders (33%) and recommended by 1 (8%). Use of ORCID 184 \nidentifiers was required by 3 funders (25%), and Code Sharing was required by 2 funders (17%) 185 \nand recommended by 1 (8%). Use of Reporting Guidelines was required by 2 funders (17%) 186 \n(Figure 2). 187 \nPreprints were not required by any funders but were recommended by 4 (33%). Open Peer 188 \nReview was rarely addressed, mentioned by only 1 funder (8%). Rigor and Reproducibility were 189 \nexplicitly required by just 1 funder (8%). 190 \n 191 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n9 \n \nFigure 2. Funders' expectations for open science practices 192 \nMonitoring and support of open science practices 193 \nThe extent to which funders monitored compliance with open science practices and provided 194 \nsupport varied across practice types (Tables 2 and 3). Among funders that required or 195 \nrecommended a given open science practice, monitoring mechanisms were inconsistently 196 \nreported (Figure 2). For open access, 2 of 7 funders (29%) indicated that compliance was 197 \nmonitored, 3 (43%) provided unclear information, and 2 (29%) did not mention monitoring. For 198 \ndata sharing, 2 of 8 funders (25%) reported monitoring, 1 (13%) mentioned monitoring without 199 \nfurther detail, and 5 (63%) did not mention monitoring. Monitoring was more frequent for data 200 \nmanagement plans (3 of 5, 60%), ORCID use (2 of 3, 67%), and rigor and reproducibility 201 \nrequirements (1 of 1, 100%). Prospective registration and public and patient involvement were 202 \nmonitored by one-third of relevant funders (2 of 6 each), whereas monitoring of code sharing 203 \nwas reported by 1 of 3 funders (33%). No monitoring mechanisms were identified for preprints, 204 \nopen peer review, material sharing, or use of reporting guidelines. 205 \nSupport mechanisms varied widely across practices (Table 3). Financial assistance to cover 206 \nrelated costs, through dedicated funding or fee reimbursements, was most frequently offered for 207 \nopen access (86%), data sharing (50%), and public and patient involvement (50%), reflecting the 208 \nresource demands of these practices. Guiding materials were widely provided across several 209 \npractices, including open access (43%), data sharing (38%), prospective registration (67%), and 210 \ndata management plans (80%). Infrastructure, such as data repositories, was provided for data 211 \nand code sharing (38% and 67%, respectively), and open access (29%). Formal or informal 212 \ntraining was less commonly reported overall, but was most commonly provided for data 213 \nmanagement plans (40%), prospective registration, and public and patient involvement (17%). 214 \nTable 2. Monitoring of open science practices by cardiovascular research funders 215 \nOpen science \npractice \nFunders where the \npractice is required \nor recommended \nMonitors compliance \nYes Unclear Mentioned but \nnot discussed \nNo or not \nmentioned \nOpen access 7 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 0 2 (29%) \nData sharing 8 2 (25%) 0 1 (13%) 5 (63%) \nCode sharing 3 1 (33%) 0 0 2 (67%) \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n10 \n \nProspective \nregistration \n6 2 (33%) 0 2 (33%) 2 (33%) \nPreprint 4 0 0 0 4 (100%) \nPublic and Patient \nInvolvement \n6 2 (33%) 0 1 (17%) 3 (50%) \nData Management \nPlans \n5 3 (60%) 0 0 2 (40%) \nOpen peer review 0 0 0 0 0 \nUse of ORCID 3 2 (67%) 0 0 1 (33%) \nRigor and \nReproducibility \n1 1 (100%) 0 0 0 \nMaterial sharing 2 0 0 0 2 (100%) \nUse of reporting \nguidelines \n2 0 0 0 2 (100%) \n 216 \nTable 3. Support provided by cardiovascular research funders for each open science practice 217 \nOpen science \npractice  \nFunders where \nthe practice is \nrequired or \nrecommended \nProvides \nsupport \nProvided support \nCover \nrelated costs \nProvides \ninstructions \nor guiding \nmaterials \nProvides \ninfrastructure \nProvides \nformal or \ninformal \ntraining \nNot \nmentioned \n \nOpen access 7 6 (86%) 6 (86%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) \nData sharing 8 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 4 (50%) \nCode sharing 3 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) \nProspective \nregistration 6 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) \nPreprint 4 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) \nPublic and Patient \nInvolvement 6 4 (67%) 3 (50%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) \nData Management \nPlans 5 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) \nOpen peer review 0  - - - - - - \nUse of ORCId 3 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) \nRigor and \nReproducibility 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) \nMaterial sharing 2 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) \nUse of reporting \nguidelines 2 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) \n 218 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n11 \n \nDiscussion 219 \nThis scoping review provides a comprehensive assessment of open science expectations among 220 \n12 major cardiovascular research funders globally. Our findings show that while many funders 221 \nhave incorporated some key open science practices, formal requirements remain unevenly 222 \napplied across the range of open science activities. Notably, data sharing and open access were 223 \nthe most frequently required practices, reflecting broad recognition of their central role in 224 \nfostering accessibility and transparency of science. However, practices such as code sharing, use 225 \nof reporting guidelines, open peer review, and preprints received far less attention, suggesting 226 \nimportant gaps in funder policies.  227 \nMonitoring of compliance with open science policies was inconsistent and often lacking, even 228 \nfor widely required practices. Without (continuous) monitoring, it is likely difficult for funders to 229 \nuse data to better disseminate and implement open science mandates and recommendations 230 \namong their grantees. For example, fewer than one-third of funders with requirements for open 231 \naccess publishing or data sharing actively monitored adherence. Monitoring was somewhat more 232 \ncommon for data management plans (60%) and the use of ORCID (67%), which may reflect 233 \ntheir stronger ties to administrative infrastructure or grant reporting mechanisms. The lack of 234 \nmonitoring mechanisms for practices such as preprints, open peer review, and material sharing 235 \nindicates a potential disconnect between funder expectations and enforcement, raising questions 236 \nabout the effectiveness of current policies in promoting sustained behavior change among 237 \nresearchers. 238 \nDespite variable monitoring, many funders provide important support mechanisms to facilitate 239 \nimplementation. Financial assistance to cover related costs was more frequent for open access 240 \n(86%), data sharing (50%), and public and patient involvement (50%), highlighting funders’ 241 \nrecognition of cost barriers for these practices. Guiding materials and infrastructure, including 242 \nrepositories and technical platforms, were also frequently made available for data sharing, code 243 \nsharing, and data management plans, supporting researchers in meeting policy requirements. 244 \nHowever, formal or informal training opportunities were less consistently reported, highlighting 245 \na potential area for growth. Given that prior surveys have identified a lack of training and 246 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n12 \n \nresources as key barriers to open science (8) uptake in cardiovascular research, increasing 247 \ncapacity-building initiatives may be critical to achieving more widespread adoption. 248 \nThis limited and uneven adoption of open science reflects a lack of coordination that could limit 249 \nthe global cardiovascular research community from fully benefiting from open science. Given 250 \nthat cardiovascular research is inherently international, investigators in any single region rely on 251 \naccess to publications, data, and protocols produced worldwide. Without harmonized policies 252 \nand consistent enforcement, the potential for open science to accelerate discovery and improve 253 \npatient outcomes is undermined. 254 \nLimitations 255 \nThis study has several strengths, including its novel focus on cardiovascular research funders, a 256 \nsystematic and rigorous approach to identifying and analyzing policies, and an assessment of a 257 \nbroad range of open science practices within a single review. However, some limitations must be 258 \nacknowledged. Our search was limited to publicly available documents, excluding those only 259 \naccessible behind password-protected platforms such as grant application portals. Many funders 260 \nmake their requirements available only at these later stages. We did not contact funders to verify 261 \nthe completeness of the documents, including cases where no documents were identified. This is 262 \na limitation of our study. Nonetheless, we consider it essential that open science expectations be 263 \nmade publicly available and easily accessible. Clear communication of these requirements before 264 \napplication is crucial to ensure transparency and to allow researchers to prepare adequately. 265 \nAdditionally, our searches were conducted using keywords in both English and French, and we 266 \nincluded documents for which reliable translations could be obtained using automatic tools such 267 \nas browser-based translators available on funders’ websites. Despite these efforts, documents 268 \npublished exclusively in other languages or lacking accessible translations may have been missed 269 \nand underrepresented in our review. 270 \nConclusion 271 \nIn conclusion, our findings suggest that cardiovascular funders are engaging with open science 272 \nbut face challenges in translating policies into practice. The observed gaps in monitoring and 273 \nsupport highlight opportunities for funders to strengthen their policies by integrating clearer 274 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n13 \n \ncompliance mechanisms and expanding resources for researchers. Coordinated efforts among 275 \nfunders, aligned with evolving best practices and researcher needs, will be essential to fostering a 276 \nculture of transparency and reproducibility that can accelerate discovery and ultimately improve 277 \ncardiovascular research findings.  278 \nFuture work should explore how funder policies interact with institutional and researcher-level 279 \nfactors to influence open science behaviors in cardiovascular research. For example, if a funder 280 \nmandated data sharing but the grantee’s institution did not, this might be seen as a barrier to 281 \nimplementing the practice. It is likely that better communication between funders and research-282 \nperforming organizations will foster greater uptake and implementation of open science 283 \npractices. Additionally, qualitative research engaging key interest holders could help identify 284 \npractical barriers and facilitators to policy implementation, informing more tailored and effective 285 \ninterventions. As open science continues to evolve, funders’ roles as leaders and enablers will 286 \nremain critical in shaping a more open, collaborative, and trustworthy cardiovascular research 287 \necosystem. If cardiovascular research wishes to reap the benefits afforded by open science, 288 \nfunders will want to ensure that they set policies, resources, and provide guidance for researchers 289 \nto comply, and monitor success.  290 \n 291 \nFunding 292 \nFunding for this project is provided by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. 293 \n 294 \nAuthor Contributions  295 \nConceptualization: All authors; Methodology: All authors; Formal Analysis: ACV A, AMA, 296 \nKDC; Investigation: ACV A, AMA; Data Curation: ACV A, AMA; Writing-Original Draft: 297 \nACV A; Writing- Review & Editing: All authors; Supervision: KDC; Project Administration: 298 \nACV A, KDC; Funding Acquisition: KDC, DM, JR. 299 \nDisclosures 300 \nKDC is the co-chair of DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment).  301 \n 302 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n14 \n \nData availability statement 303 \nAll data and materials underlying this study are publicly available on the Open Science 304 \nFramework (OSF) at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9JEFW.  305 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n15 \n \nReferences 306 \n 307 \n1. UNESCO. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. 2021.  308 \n2. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Memorandum For The Heads Of 309 \nExecutive Departments And Agencies [Internet]. 2022. Available from: 310 \nhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-311 \nMemo.pdf 312 \n3. Cobey KD, Liu PP. A call to embrace a culture of openness in cardiovascular research. Eur 313 \nHeart J. 2022 Jun 21;43(24):2261–3.  314 \n4. Heckerman GO, Tzng E, Campos-Melendez A, Ekwueme C, Mueller A. Transparency of 315 \nresearch practices in cardiovascular literature. Mangoni AA, Barton M, Errington TM, Bishop 316 \nDV, editors. eLife. 2025 Mar 26;14:e81051.  317 \n5. Williams JL, Chu HC, Lown MK, Daniel J, Meckl RD, Patel D, et al. Weaknesses in 318 \nExperimental Design and Reporting Decrease the Likelihood of Reproducibility and 319 \nGeneralization of Recent Cardiovascular Research. Cureus. 2022 Jan;14(1):e21086.  320 \n6. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. 321 \nIncreasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet. 322 \n2014;383(9912):166–75.  323 \n7. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste 324 \nfrom incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet. 2014 Jan 325 \n18;383(9913):267–76.  326 \n8. Cobey KD, Alayche M, Saba S, Barnes NY, Ebrahimzadeh S, Alarcón E, et al. Cardiology 327 \nresearchers’ practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey. Open 328 \nHeart. 2024 Jan 1;11(1):e002433.  329 \n9. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global 330 \nBurden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990-2019: Update From the GBD 2019 331 \nStudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Dec 22;76(25):2982–3021.  332 \n10. Tan AC, Webster AC, Libesman S, Yang Z, Chand RR, Liu W, et al. Data sharing 333 \npolicies across health research globally: Cross-sectional meta-research study. Res Synth 334 \nMethods. 2024 Nov;15(6):1060–71.  335 \n11. British Heart Foundation. About the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum 336 \n(GCRFF) [Internet]. British Heart Foundation. [cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available from: 337 \nhttps://www.bhf.org.uk/for-professionals/global-cardiovascular-research-funders-338 \nforum/about-the-gcrff 339 \n12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA 340 \nExtension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 341 \n2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73.  342 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n16 \n \n13. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: APA handbook of research methods in 343 \npsychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and 344 \nbiological. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 57–71. (APA 345 \nhandbooks in psychology®.).  346 \n 347 \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}