Funders’ expectations for open science in cardiovascular research: A Scoping review of the largest cardiovascular research funders

22 Open science practices, including data sharing, open access, and prospective study registration, 23 have been increasingly recognized to improve transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in 24 research, yet their uptake and implementation by cardiovascular research funders is unclear. We 25 conducted a scoping review of publicly available policies, guidance, and grant instructions from 26 12 members of the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum to assess expectations, 27 monitoring, and support for open science in cardiovascular research. We included 105 documents 28 from 9 funders; no relevant documents were identified for 3 funders. Data sharing (75%) and 29 open access (67%) were the most common mandates by funders, followed by prospective 30 registration (50%). Requirements for other practices, including code sharing, use of reporting 31 guidelines, preprints, and open peer review, were uncommon. Monitoring compliance was 32 inconsistent, with many funders not specifying any mechanisms, even for widely required 33 practices. Where available, support was most often provided through financial assistance, 34 guidance, or infrastructure, particularly for open access, data sharing, and patient or public 35 involvement. These findings suggest that while cardiovascular funders are engaging with open 36 science, policies remain uneven in scope, monitoring, and support. Navigating the open science 37 implementation gap in cardiovascular research will be essential to reap the benefits of 38 transparency and innovation, only possible through the sharing of information and data. 39 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 2

40 Open science refers to a broad set of practices that aim to make scientific research more 41 transparent, accessible, collaborative, and reproducible. While there is no single consensus on 42 what open science entails, the practices include, but are not limited to, sharing research data, 43 code, and materials; prospectively registering studies; publishing in open access; using reporting 44 guidelines; and engaging in open peer review (1). Globally, open science has gained momentum 45 as a strategy to foster research integrity, collaboration, and accelerate scientific discovery across 46 disciplines, including biomedical research (1,2). Cardiovascular research, like many other fields, 47 faces growing demands to improve the transparency and reproducibility of its research outputs 48 (3). Prior audits show that most cardiology publications do not make data, protocols, or statistical 49 analysis scripts publicly available (4), and present inconsistent reporting (5), echoing broader 50 concerns about research waste and reproducibility (6,7). Open science practices offer a potential 51 solution to these challenges, but their uptake remains variable (8), and implementation is often 52 influenced by institutional and systemic factors, including the policies and expectations of 53 research funders. These issues are especially pressing given the global burden of cardiovascular 54 disease and the imperative to translate research findings efficiently into clinical care (9). 55 Funders play a critical role in shaping research practices by setting requirements and providing 56 incentives for grant recipients. By mandating or recommending open science practices, funders 57 can promote a culture of transparency and reproducibility. Most previous analyses have focused 58 on general biomedical funders or specific practices, such as data sharing (10), often neglecting 59 the cardiovascular research landscape as a distinct domain with its own needs and challenges. 60 For example, an international survey of 198 cardiovascular researchers (8) reported that many 61 participants had limited formal training in open science: 52% learned largely on the job, and 36% 62 had received no training at all. Respondents indicated that additional funding and institutional 63 support were critical to adopting open science practices, with funders seen as key interest holders 64 to influence their behaviours. Little is known about how cardiovascular research funders are 65 addressing open science in their policies and guidance, and to what degree there is coordination 66 internationally across cardiovascular funders. 67 To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify and assess publicly available 68 policies and guidance related to open science practices among funders that are members of the 69 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 3 Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum (GCRFF), a global partnership of 12 major 70 cardiovascular research funders (11). Our objectives were to (1) map the extent to which open 71 science practices are addressed in these funders’ official documents, (2) classify their 72 expectations (e.g., mandated, recommended), and (3) assess the types of support and monitoring 73 mechanisms provided. By synthesizing this information, we aim to inform future efforts to align 74 open science policies across funders and support their implementation in cardiovascular research. 75

76 Protocol and registration 77 We conducted a scoping review to identify and analyze publicly available policies and guidance 78 related to open science practices from cardiovascular research funders. This review followed the 79 JBI methodology for scoping reviews and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension 80 for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (12). The study protocol was registered prospectively 81 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9PZTA). 82 Eligibility criteria 83 We included documents that addressed at least one open science practice (e.g., open access, open 84 data, prospective registration, preprints) and were publicly available from cardiovascular 85 research funders. Eligible document types included official policies, guidance documents, grant 86 requirements, application instructions, and relevant web pages. Documents were included if 87 written in English or if a reliable translation could be produced using DeepL Translate. Opinion 88 pieces, blogs, and non-official funder communications were excluded. 89 Information sources 90 We focused on members of the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum (GCRFF), an 91 international coalition of 12 major cardiovascular research funders: 92 1. American Heart Association (USA) 93 2. British Heart Foundation (UK) 94 3. Danish Heart Foundation 95 4. Dutch Heart Foundation (Hartstichting) 96 5. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) 97 6. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada 98 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 4 7. Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (CIHR, Canada) 99 8. Leducq Foundation 100 9. National Heart Foundation of Australia 101 10. National Heart Foundation of New Zealand 102 11. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH-NHLBI, USA) 103 12. Swiss Heart Foundation 104 105 We defined open science as an umbrella term encompassing practices that promote transparency, 106 reproducibility, accessibility, and collaboration in research. Documents were included if they 107 referred to at least one of the following practices: open access, open data, data management, 108 open code, open materials, prospective registration, transparent reporting, reproducibility 109 practices, preprints, citizen science (including patient and public involvement), open peer review, 110 or researcher identifiers (e.g., ORCID). Table 1 presents the descriptions of each of the 111 investigated practices. 112 We restricted our analysis to cardiovascular research funders and included only documents 113 available on official websites, without date restrictions. 114 Table 1. Open science practices descriptions 115 Open science practice Description Open access The practice of making scholarly work freely available online, allowing anyone to access, read, and use it for lawful purposes without financial, legal, or technical barriers Data sharing The practice of making the underlying datasets used to generate research findings accessible to other researchers, policymakers, and the public, either openly or under controlled conditions Code sharing Code sharing in science refers to the practice of making the scripts, software, or computational workflows used in a study openly available to others. Sharing code allows peers to reproduce analyses, validate findings, and adapt existing

for new research questions Prospective registration The practice of publicly registering a study’s protocol, including research questions, outcomes, design, and planned analyses, before data collection or examination Preprint Preprints refer to scientific manuscripts or research findings that are made publicly available in advance of formal publication, typically referred to as a form of Green Open Access Public and Patient Involvement Public and Patient Involvement refers to the active partnership of patients, caregivers, and members of the public in the research process. Rather than being the subjects of research, they contribute to shaping research priorities, study design, conduct, and dissemination .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 5 Data Management Plans Research data management (RDM) involves the systematic organization, storage, documentation, and preservation of research data throughout its lifecycle. DMPs are formal documents outlining how data will be collected, managed, shared, and preserved Open peer review Open peer review is an umbrella term for peer review models that aim to increase transparency in the evaluation of scholarly work. It can include practices such as revealing reviewer identities, publishing review reports alongside articles, allowing public comments, or enabling authors and reviewers to interact directly Use of ORCID Using a unique digital identifier for researchers that links their professional activities, publications, and datasets. ORCID enhances transparency, ensures proper attribution, and facilitates tracking of contributions across projects and platforms Rigor and Reproducibility Ensuring that research is conducted with robust, transparent, and unbiased

so that results can be independently verified. Rigor refers to the strict application of scientific principles and methods, while reproducibility means that findings can be consistently obtained when experiments or analyses are repeated under the same conditions

sharing Material sharing refers to the practice of making physical research resources, such as biological samples, cell lines, reagents, instruments, or other study materials, available to other researchers Use of reporting guidelines Tools or instructions designed to help authors transparently report research using explicit methods. These can take the form of checklists, flowcharts, or structured text to ensure clarity, completeness, and consistency in reporting 116 Search strategy 117 Two reviewers independently conducted searches between January and April 2025. Searches 118 were performed on funders’ websites using internal search tools and supplemented with Google 119 queries combining funder names with targeted keywords (e.g., “open science,” “open data,” 120 “data sharing,” “preprints,” “preregistration,” “reporting guideline,” “ORCID,” “patient 121 involvement,” “open access,” and “reproducibility”). The first 100 Google hits per funder were 122 screened for relevance. 123 Data extraction and analysis 124 We developed a customized data extraction form and piloted it on five documents to ensure 125 clarity and consistency. One reviewer extracted all data, and a second reviewer conducted quality 126 control on all records. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or with input from a third 127 reviewer when necessary. Data extraction was performed using Airtable, a cloud-based database 128 platform. 129 We extracted the following information: 130 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 6 1. Funder name and country 131 2. Document type (e.g., policy, grant call, guidance) 132 3. Year of publication or last update 133 4. Cardiovascular research focus (if specified) 134 5. Open science practices mentioned 135 6. Whether practices were required, recommended, mentioned without further detail, or not 136 mentioned 137 7. Monitoring or compliance mechanisms 138 8. Forms of support (e.g., training, financial resources, infrastructure) 139 Some funders developed multiple documents corresponding to different funding opportunities, 140 which varied in their expectations for open science practices. For example, one funder’s clinical 141 trial program explicitly required data sharing, while its early-career investigator program only 142 recommended it. To ensure consistency, we used an inclusive coding approach: if any eligible 143 document from a funder mandated a given practice, we classified that practice as “Required” for 144 the funder overall, even if other documents only recommended it or did not mention it. This 145 approach reflects the presence of at least one formal requirement within the funder's policy 146 landscape. 147 Quantitative data were summarized descriptively using counts and proportions. For qualitative 148 data, we conducted a thematic analysis following the approach by Braun and Clarke (13). Two 149 reviewers independently reviewed and coded the extracted policy text, refined the codes through 150 discussion, and organized them into overarching themes. Any disagreements were resolved with 151 input from an additional reviewer. Thematic synthesis was conducted using Microsoft Excel 152 (RRID: SCR_016137). 153

154 We identified 145 documents from 11 (of the 12) cardiovascular research funders, across 9 155 countries, in the GCRFF, based on searches on the funders’ websites and Google. For 1 funder, 156 no potentially relevant documents could be located. After duplicates were removed, a total of 157 142 documents were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 38 documents were excluded for not 158 meeting the inclusion criteria (e.g., documents lacked relevance to open science expectations or 159 Studies included in review (n = ) Reports of included studies (n = ) .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 7 did not pertain to research funding). This resulted in 105 documents from 9 funders included in 160 this review (Figure 1). The three funders where we did not locate relevant documents were: the 161 Leducq Foundation, the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand, and the Swiss Heart 162 Foundation. 163 Most documents were classified as General Guidance or Instructions (59, 55%), followed by 164 Policy or Formal Statement (25, 23%), Grant Guidelines (12, 11%), Grant Calls (7, 6%), and 165 Other (5, 5%). Where available, most documents were published or updated in 2024. 166 167 168 169 Figure 1. Flow-chart of funders and documents included in the scoping review. 170 171 172 Open science practices 173 We investigated 12 cardiovascular research funders for their expectations on open science 174 practices. To calculate the proportion of funders addressing each open science practice, all 12 175 funders were included in the denominator. However, the three funders without any documents 176 were not assigned classifications (e.g., “Required,” “Recommended,” or “Not Mentioned”). The 177 Funders screened (n = 12) Funders without retrieved documents (n = 1) Funders with included documents (n = 9) Documents included in review (n = 105) - General guidance (n = 59) - Policy documents or statements (n = 25) - Grant guidelines (n = 12) - Grant calls (n = 7) - Other (n = 5) Documents excluded (n = 40) - Duplicates excluded (n = 4) - Documents excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria (n = 31) - Outdated documents that have been replaced (n=5) Funders whose retrieved documents were all excluded (n = 2) Funders with retrieved documents (n = 11) Documents screened (n = 145) .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 8 extent to which various practices were required, recommended, mentioned, not mentioned, 178 monitored, or supported is presented in Figure 1. 179 Open science expectations 180 The most commonly required practices were Data Sharing (9 funders, 75%) and Open Access (8 181 funders, 67%), followed by Prospective Registration (6 funders, 50%). Data Management Plans 182 were required by 4 funders (33%) and recommended by 1 (8%). Similarly, Public and Patient 183 Involvement was required by 4 funders (33%) and recommended by 1 (8%). Use of ORCID 184 identifiers was required by 3 funders (25%), and Code Sharing was required by 2 funders (17%) 185 and recommended by 1 (8%). Use of Reporting Guidelines was required by 2 funders (17%) 186 (Figure 2). 187 Preprints were not required by any funders but were recommended by 4 (33%). Open Peer 188 Review was rarely addressed, mentioned by only 1 funder (8%). Rigor and Reproducibility were 189 explicitly required by just 1 funder (8%). 190 191 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 9 Figure 2. Funders' expectations for open science practices 192 Monitoring and support of open science practices 193 The extent to which funders monitored compliance with open science practices and provided 194 support varied across practice types (Tables 2 and 3). Among funders that required or 195 recommended a given open science practice, monitoring mechanisms were inconsistently 196 reported (Figure 2). For open access, 2 of 7 funders (29%) indicated that compliance was 197 monitored, 3 (43%) provided unclear information, and 2 (29%) did not mention monitoring. For 198 data sharing, 2 of 8 funders (25%) reported monitoring, 1 (13%) mentioned monitoring without 199 further detail, and 5 (63%) did not mention monitoring. Monitoring was more frequent for data 200 management plans (3 of 5, 60%), ORCID use (2 of 3, 67%), and rigor and reproducibility 201 requirements (1 of 1, 100%). Prospective registration and public and patient involvement were 202 monitored by one-third of relevant funders (2 of 6 each), whereas monitoring of code sharing 203 was reported by 1 of 3 funders (33%). No monitoring mechanisms were identified for preprints, 204 open peer review, material sharing, or use of reporting guidelines. 205 Support mechanisms varied widely across practices (Table 3). Financial assistance to cover 206 related costs, through dedicated funding or fee reimbursements, was most frequently offered for 207 open access (86%), data sharing (50%), and public and patient involvement (50%), reflecting the 208 resource demands of these practices. Guiding materials were widely provided across several 209 practices, including open access (43%), data sharing (38%), prospective registration (67%), and 210 data management plans (80%). Infrastructure, such as data repositories, was provided for data 211 and code sharing (38% and 67%, respectively), and open access (29%). Formal or informal 212 training was less commonly reported overall, but was most commonly provided for data 213 management plans (40%), prospective registration, and public and patient involvement (17%). 214 Table 2. Monitoring of open science practices by cardiovascular research funders 215 Open science practice Funders where the practice is required or recommended Monitors compliance Yes Unclear Mentioned but not discussed No or not mentioned Open access 7 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 0 2 (29%) Data sharing 8 2 (25%) 0 1 (13%) 5 (63%) Code sharing 3 1 (33%) 0 0 2 (67%) .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 10 Prospective registration 6 2 (33%) 0 2 (33%) 2 (33%) Preprint 4 0 0 0 4 (100%) Public and Patient Involvement 6 2 (33%) 0 1 (17%) 3 (50%) Data Management Plans 5 3 (60%) 0 0 2 (40%) Open peer review 0 0 0 0 0 Use of ORCID 3 2 (67%) 0 0 1 (33%) Rigor and Reproducibility 1 1 (100%) 0 0 0

sharing 2 0 0 0 2 (100%) Use of reporting guidelines 2 0 0 0 2 (100%) 216 Table 3. Support provided by cardiovascular research funders for each open science practice 217 Open science practice Funders where the practice is required or recommended Provides support Provided support Cover related costs Provides instructions or guiding

Provides infrastructure Provides formal or informal training Not mentioned Open access 7 6 (86%) 6 (86%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) Data sharing 8 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 3 (38%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 4 (50%) Code sharing 3 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) Prospective registration 6 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) Preprint 4 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) Public and Patient Involvement 6 4 (67%) 3 (50%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) Data Management Plans 5 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) Open peer review 0 - - - - - - Use of ORCId 3 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) Rigor and Reproducibility 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%)

sharing 2 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) Use of reporting guidelines 2 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 218 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 11

219 This scoping review provides a comprehensive assessment of open science expectations among 220 12 major cardiovascular research funders globally. Our findings show that while many funders 221 have incorporated some key open science practices, formal requirements remain unevenly 222 applied across the range of open science activities. Notably, data sharing and open access were 223 the most frequently required practices, reflecting broad recognition of their central role in 224 fostering accessibility and transparency of science. However, practices such as code sharing, use 225 of reporting guidelines, open peer review, and preprints received far less attention, suggesting 226 important gaps in funder policies. 227 Monitoring of compliance with open science policies was inconsistent and often lacking, even 228 for widely required practices. Without (continuous) monitoring, it is likely difficult for funders to 229 use data to better disseminate and implement open science mandates and recommendations 230 among their grantees. For example, fewer than one-third of funders with requirements for open 231 access publishing or data sharing actively monitored adherence. Monitoring was somewhat more 232 common for data management plans (60%) and the use of ORCID (67%), which may reflect 233 their stronger ties to administrative infrastructure or grant reporting mechanisms. The lack of 234 monitoring mechanisms for practices such as preprints, open peer review, and material sharing 235 indicates a potential disconnect between funder expectations and enforcement, raising questions 236 about the effectiveness of current policies in promoting sustained behavior change among 237 researchers. 238 Despite variable monitoring, many funders provide important support mechanisms to facilitate 239 implementation. Financial assistance to cover related costs was more frequent for open access 240 (86%), data sharing (50%), and public and patient involvement (50%), highlighting funders’ 241 recognition of cost barriers for these practices. Guiding materials and infrastructure, including 242 repositories and technical platforms, were also frequently made available for data sharing, code 243 sharing, and data management plans, supporting researchers in meeting policy requirements. 244 However, formal or informal training opportunities were less consistently reported, highlighting 245 a potential area for growth. Given that prior surveys have identified a lack of training and 246 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 12 resources as key barriers to open science (8) uptake in cardiovascular research, increasing 247 capacity-building initiatives may be critical to achieving more widespread adoption. 248 This limited and uneven adoption of open science reflects a lack of coordination that could limit 249 the global cardiovascular research community from fully benefiting from open science. Given 250 that cardiovascular research is inherently international, investigators in any single region rely on 251 access to publications, data, and protocols produced worldwide. Without harmonized policies 252 and consistent enforcement, the potential for open science to accelerate discovery and improve 253 patient outcomes is undermined. 254

255 This study has several strengths, including its novel focus on cardiovascular research funders, a 256 systematic and rigorous approach to identifying and analyzing policies, and an assessment of a 257 broad range of open science practices within a single review. However, some limitations must be 258 acknowledged. Our search was limited to publicly available documents, excluding those only 259 accessible behind password-protected platforms such as grant application portals. Many funders 260 make their requirements available only at these later stages. We did not contact funders to verify 261 the completeness of the documents, including cases where no documents were identified. This is 262 a limitation of our study. Nonetheless, we consider it essential that open science expectations be 263 made publicly available and easily accessible. Clear communication of these requirements before 264 application is crucial to ensure transparency and to allow researchers to prepare adequately. 265 Additionally, our searches were conducted using keywords in both English and French, and we 266 included documents for which reliable translations could be obtained using automatic tools such 267 as browser-based translators available on funders’ websites. Despite these efforts, documents 268 published exclusively in other languages or lacking accessible translations may have been missed 269 and underrepresented in our review. 270

271 In conclusion, our findings suggest that cardiovascular funders are engaging with open science 272 but face challenges in translating policies into practice. The observed gaps in monitoring and 273 support highlight opportunities for funders to strengthen their policies by integrating clearer 274 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 13 compliance mechanisms and expanding resources for researchers. Coordinated efforts among 275 funders, aligned with evolving best practices and researcher needs, will be essential to fostering a 276 culture of transparency and reproducibility that can accelerate discovery and ultimately improve 277 cardiovascular research findings. 278 Future work should explore how funder policies interact with institutional and researcher-level 279 factors to influence open science behaviors in cardiovascular research. For example, if a funder 280 mandated data sharing but the grantee’s institution did not, this might be seen as a barrier to 281 implementing the practice. It is likely that better communication between funders and research-282 performing organizations will foster greater uptake and implementation of open science 283 practices. Additionally, qualitative research engaging key interest holders could help identify 284 practical barriers and facilitators to policy implementation, informing more tailored and effective 285 interventions. As open science continues to evolve, funders’ roles as leaders and enablers will 286 remain critical in shaping a more open, collaborative, and trustworthy cardiovascular research 287 ecosystem. If cardiovascular research wishes to reap the benefits afforded by open science, 288 funders will want to ensure that they set policies, resources, and provide guidance for researchers 289 to comply, and monitor success. 290 291 Funding 292 Funding for this project is provided by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. 293 294 Author Contributions 295 Conceptualization: All authors; Methodology: All authors; Formal Analysis: ACV A, AMA, 296 KDC; Investigation: ACV A, AMA; Data Curation: ACV A, AMA; Writing-Original Draft: 297 ACV A; Writing- Review & Editing: All authors; Supervision: KDC; Project Administration: 298 ACV A, KDC; Funding Acquisition: KDC, DM, JR. 299 Disclosures 300 KDC is the co-chair of DORA (Declaration On Research Assessment). 301 302 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 14 Data availability statement 303 All data and materials underlying this study are publicly available on the Open Science 304 Framework (OSF) at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9JEFW. 305 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 15

306 307 1. UNESCO. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. 2021. 308 2. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Memorandum For The Heads Of 309 Executive Departments And Agencies [Internet]. 2022. Available from: 310 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-311 Memo.pdf 312 3. Cobey KD, Liu PP. A call to embrace a culture of openness in cardiovascular research. Eur 313 Heart J. 2022 Jun 21;43(24):2261–3. 314 4. Heckerman GO, Tzng E, Campos-Melendez A, Ekwueme C, Mueller A. Transparency of 315 research practices in cardiovascular literature. Mangoni AA, Barton M, Errington TM, Bishop 316 DV, editors. eLife. 2025 Mar 26;14:e81051. 317 5. Williams JL, Chu HC, Lown MK, Daniel J, Meckl RD, Patel D, et al. Weaknesses in 318 Experimental Design and Reporting Decrease the Likelihood of Reproducibility and 319 Generalization of Recent Cardiovascular Research. Cureus. 2022 Jan;14(1):e21086. 320 6. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. 321 Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet. 322 2014;383(9912):166–75. 323 7. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste 324 from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet. 2014 Jan 325 18;383(9913):267–76. 326 8. Cobey KD, Alayche M, Saba S, Barnes NY, Ebrahimzadeh S, Alarcón E, et al. Cardiology 327 researchers’ practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey. Open 328 Heart. 2024 Jan 1;11(1):e002433. 329 9. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global 330 Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990-2019: Update From the GBD 2019 331 Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Dec 22;76(25):2982–3021. 332 10. Tan AC, Webster AC, Libesman S, Yang Z, Chand RR, Liu W, et al. Data sharing 333 policies across health research globally: Cross-sectional meta-research study. Res Synth 334 Methods. 2024 Nov;15(6):1060–71. 335 11. British Heart Foundation. About the Global Cardiovascular Research Funders Forum 336 (GCRFF) [Internet]. British Heart Foundation. [cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available from: 337 https://www.bhf.org.uk/for-professionals/global-cardiovascular-research-funders-338 forum/about-the-gcrff 339 12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA 340 Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 341 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73. 342 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint 16 13. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: APA handbook of research methods in 343 psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and 344 biological. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 57–71. (APA 345 handbooks in psychology®.). 346 347 .CC-BY 4.0 International licenseavailable under a (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 The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 16, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.11.693828doi: bioRxiv preprint