Altered Functional Connectivity in the Reward Circuit in Betel Quid-Dependent Chewers.

Transparency and openness are widely regarded as core scientific values [, ], in part because they facilitate independent verification of reported research methods and results [, ]. Published in 2015, the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines (TOP 2015) provided a common basis for journals and publishers to design and implement eight publication standards aligned with these values []. The development of shared standards and terminology aimed to support understanding and communication across study designs and disciplines. The flexible, modular format allowed journals to adopt TOP 2015 as appropriate for their aims, scope, and context by selecting standards and levels of implementation appropriate for the types of research that they publish. For example, journals could implement different standards at different levels of stringency for different study designs. Since its publication, interest-holders have used TOP 2015 across various disciplines. More than 5,000 journal and organizational signatories expressed their support and committed to using TOP 2015 to review their standards []. According to Google Scholar, TOP 2015 has been cited over 3,000 times (as of March 2026). Evidence suggests that editors understand and support the underlying principles [], and journals implementing policies at higher levels of stringency are associated with more transparent empirical research []. Over the last decade, interest-holders have identified several opportunities to refine TOP 2015 and to strengthen its dissemination. Experience applying TOP 2015 revealed that its standards and implementation levels were sometimes interpreted inconsistently [–]. Variation in how definitions were understood made it challenging for journals and authors to design and interpret policies aligned with TOP 2015 []. Moreover, ordinal levels of implementation inadvertently signaled that greater stringency was always preferable, and dissemination efforts sometimes conveyed that all standards were universally applicable [, ]. In 2020, the Center for Open Science (COS) introduced the TOP Factor, a separate initiative that rated journal policies based on TOP 2015. Some audiences conflated TOP Factor with TOP 2015. TOP 2015 [] specified that appropriate standards depend on study design and other factors, whereas TOP Factor provided a simplistic cumulative score across all standards. Additionally, later evidence indicated limitations in the reliability and validity of TOP Factor scores due to challenges in interpreting policy alignment with TOP 2015 standards []. These insights highlight the value of clarifying definitions, improving applicability across research designs, and supporting consistent implementation. In response to these issues, we updated TOP 2015 to enhance clarity, flexibility, and alignment with diverse research workflows. TOP 2015 was designed to be revised as evidence and experience with its implementation accumulated []. To foster community-centered credibility of the TOP Guidelines, COS convened an independent advisory board in 2022 responsible for recommending revisions to the guidelines based on relevant evidence and interest-holder input. The TOP Advisory Board bylaws state that the board shall meet twice a year and that there shall be 5-to-20 members who differ in expertise, discipline, and location. No more than five COS staff and its designees serve in an ex officio (non-voting) capacity. Board members are expected to participate actively in board activities, review agendas and supporting materials before meetings, contribute to subcommittees or special assignments as needed, suggest nominees who can strengthen the board’s work, and help maintain a diverse and representative membership. Additionally, board members may determine education needs and appropriate strategies to achieve them, conduct or suggest potential outreach activities, work with relevant external groups to implement TOP, assist in designing evaluation criteria, and actively solicit community feedback to identify shortcomings and propose revisions. During the update process, the Advisory Board membership included researchers, methodologists, journal editors, and representatives of scholarly infrastructure organizations. Their disciplinary backgrounds spanned the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, as well as information science, ecology, and meta-research.