This week, we highlight a joint position statement on responsible AI use in evidence synthesis, discuss the cOAlition S 2026–2030 strategy, and share commentary on an article discussing the importance of transparently sharing clinical trial results with participants. We read about a new COS project to preserve publicly funded scientific data and discuss the attitudes and behaviours of US-based pharmacy faculty towards open science practices. Finally, we signpost the OA Journals Toolkit, which has recently been updated with new resources to help OA journals traverse the publishing landscape.
To read:
Responsible AI for evidence synthesis via Cochrane | 2-minute read
Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have released a joint Position statement on artificial intelligence (AI) use in evidence synthesis, such as systematic reviews. The statement confirms the organizations’ shared support for the Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) recommendations, and it states the need for transparency and human oversight. As Ella Flemyng (Head of Editorial Policy and Research Integrity at Cochrane) explains, the statement sets “a shared standard for the responsible use of AI in evidence synthesis … and supports [synthesists] in navigating the evolving AI landscape with more confidence and accountability”.
cOAlition S announces new 5-year strategy via Science | 3-minute read
cOAlition S began as a group of 12 organizations that changed the research landscape by requiring funding recipients to make their research freely available immediately on publication. Now, cOAlition S has released its new strategy for 2026–2030, which encourages and supports open access (OA) publication rather than requiring it, recognizing that “no single model can meet all needs”. In this article, Jeffrey Brainard (Reporter at Science) discusses the mixed views on the strategy; some appreciate the more nuanced approach, but others believe the coalition should go further to protect authors from exploitative business models.
OA supports clinical trial transparency via Open Pharma | 1-minute read
Open Pharma recently highlighted an article published in PLOS Medicine discussing the importance of sharing clinical trial results with participants, following the principles of open science. Neil Pakenham-Walsh (Coordinator of Healthcare Information For All) shared his thoughts on the article, musing that “the research paper itself should be OA so that any interested participants can review the findings in detail”. Despite the article advocating for sharing clinical trial results with participants, the authors did not specifically mention OA publishing, and Neil suspects that some study participants would be concerned if research findings were “locked behind a paywall”.
COS receives grant to preserve scientific data via COS | 3-minute read
Earlier this year, publicly funded scientific data were removed from many US federal agency websites, exemplifying the need to safeguard public access to research outputs. Now, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation – an organization working to achieve health equity – has awarded the Center for Open Science (COS) a grant for the Ensuring the preservation, accessibility, and usability of public data project. The project will deliver a strategic plan to identify and monitor at-risk data, and it will guide the development of sustainable data management infrastructure, including COS’s own Open Science Framework. Find out more on the project website.
US-based pharmacy faculty perspectives on open science via Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy | 7-minute read
The COS’s Open Scholarship survey assesses researchers’ views on various open science practices including data sharing, preprints and OA publishing. In this study, Spencer Harpe (Professor of Pharmacy Administration at Midwestern University) used the survey to collect the attitudes and practices of 663 faculty members from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy roster. Despite generally positive attitudes towards open science practices, usage rates were low – ranging from 28% for OA publishing to 1.7% for study preregistration – highlighting areas for improvement. A preprint of the full article is available via medRxiv.
To engage with:
Updates to the OA Journals Toolkit via OA Journals Toolkit
Developed by the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association and the Directory of Open Access Journals, the OA Journals Toolkit aims to help OA journals adapt to the ever-changing publishing landscape. The toolkit covers numerous aspects of the everyday operation and development lifecycle of OA journals, and has recently been updated to include new resources for accessibility remediation and long-term digital archiving and preservation. All toolkit resources can be reused under a Creative Commons Attribution licence, and feedback on the toolkit is welcomed to ensure the needs of the publishing community are met.
Enjoy our content? Read last week’s digest and check out our latest quarterly update!
Don’t forget to follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn for regular updates!
