Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature

Objective: Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility. In this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of Psychiatry. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study design was used. From a random sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate and blinded fashion using a piloted Google Form. For this study, we included publications from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. The publications were evaluated for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included the availability of materials, data, protocol, analysis script, preregistration, open access, financial conflicts of interest, funding sources, and pre-registration in an online repository. Results: Our study identified 158 journals meeting the inclusion criteria and 90,281 publications from within the timeframe. Of the 300 randomly sampled, 4 were inaccessible, resulting in a final sample of 296 publications. Of the 296, only 107 (36%) were publically available online. Regarding reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, 4 provided an in-depth protocol, and 1 contained the raw data required to reproduce the outcomes. Conclusions: Currently, researchers in the field of Psychiatry do not adhere to practices that promote reproducibility and transparency. Change is therefore needed. This study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in psychiatry literature, and future assessments are recommended to evaluate progress.