Open-science policies in orofacial pain publishing: a cross-sectional meta-research audit of five purposively selected journals
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Background Open-science principles are increasingly incorporated into biomedical publishing, but the extent to which journals relevant to orofacial pain translate transparency principles into explicit and mandatory publication policies remains unclear. Objective To characterize explicit and mandatory open-science policy wording across ten predefined domains in five purposively selected journals relevant to orofacial pain research. Methods This cross-sectional document audit used a policy snapshot dated 22 September 2026 and a targeted public-source recheck on 29 September 2026. Five journals were purposively chosen to cover oral rehabilitation, specialty orofacial pain, broad dental research, headache, and multidisciplinary pain. Two authors’ original independent codes for 50 journal-domain cells were compared before consensus. A targeted source adjudication subsequently reclassified the Journal of Dental Research code/materials cell from R to E; descriptive summaries use this corrected final matrix. Coding categories were required (R), encouraged/permitted (E), and no explicit guidance identified (N). Primary measures were policy breadth and mandatory coverage; the secondary Policy Strength Score (PSS) was treated as a descriptive re-expression. Results Explicit policy wording was identified in 45/50 cells (90.0%): 27/50 (54.0%) were mandatory, 18/50 (36.0%) encouraged/permitted, and 5/50 (10.0%) had no explicit applicable guidance identified. The median breadth was 90% (range 80–100%), and the median mandatory coverage was 50% (range 40–70%). Data-availability statements, contributor transparency, and AI-use disclosure were coded mandatory in all five journals. Original independent coding agreed in 46/50 cells (92.0%, linearly weighted kappa 0.88); this statistic precedes the targeted source-adjudicated correction. PAIN changed from joint second to third to first across the three secondary scoring conventions; domain weights were held equal. Conclusions In five purposively selected journals, stated policy coverage differed most between disclosure/accountability domains and public research-object or prospective-transparency domains. The audit describes publicly stated author instructions, while the proposed specialty-sensitive framework is a direction for future consensus research rather than an empirical outcome. Clinical Significance A source-located, cell-by-cell policy map distinguishes mandatory statements from underlying data and code sharing. Journal-level secondary scores are descriptive and sensitive to how R and E are weighted.
Source: Clinical Dental Journal
Authors: Santosh R. Patil, Shikhar Daniel
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W7214780596