Objective To quantify conflicts of interest, assess the accuracy of authors self-reporting them, and examine the association between conflicts of interest and favourability of results and discussions in addiction medicine systematic reviews. Design A search was performed on Medline (Ovid) from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using a systematic search strategy. Data were extracted from each systematic review, including conflict of interest statements, authorship characteristics and the favourability of the results/conclusion sections. A search algorithm was used to identify any undisclosed conflicts of interest on the Open Payments Database (Dollars for Docs), Dollars for Profs, Google Patents/United States Patent and Trade Office, and prior conflict of interest statements in other published works from these authors. Results The search identified 127 systematic reviews, representing 665 unique authors. Of the 127 studies, 81 reported no authors with conflicts of interest, 28 with 1 or more conflict, and 18 had no conflict of interest statement. Additional non-disclosed conflicts of interest were found for 34 authors. There were 69 reviews that had at least one author with a conflict of interest. Of the 69 reviews, 14 (20.3%) reported favourable results and 26 (37.7%) reported favourable discussion/conclusions with no statistically significant association. A subanalysis was performed on publications with only US authors (51) with 35 (68.9%) having at least 1 conflict of interest. US authored studies that had a conflict of interest favoured the results (p = <0.001) and discussion/conclusion (p = 0.018) more often. Conclusion Although multiple undisclosed financial conflicts of interest were found, there was no correlation with the favourability of the results or discussion/conclusions across all addiction medicine systematic reviews. Further research needs to be done on US-based publications and encourage disclosure systems worldwide to provide more accurate reporting.

Background Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research. Methods For this review, we sampled 300 publications in the field of urology to assess for 14 indicators of reproducibility including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and if the publication was available free to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources. Results Of the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data available for analysis of reproducibility. Of the 171 articles with empirical data to analyze, 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% provided access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies provided analysis scripts. Our review is cross-sectional in nature, including only PubMed indexed journals-published in English-and within a finite time period. Thus, our results should be interpreted in light of these considerations. Conclusion Current urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality while minimizing waste and patient risk.

Introduction and aims: The high prevalence and economic burden of alcohol use disorder (AUD) requires methodologically sound research to guide treatment decisions. Systematic reviews (SR) are fundamental to clinical decision making as they collate results of all studies for a given topic and provide summaries of the clinical evidence. Bias resulting from industry relationships can compromise the validity of SRs. Thus, we investigated financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) within SRs involving the pharmacologic treatment of AUD. Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database to retrieve SRs published between September 2016 and December 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, blinded fashion-collecting characteristics of the reviews including the authors' FCOI statements. The results and discussion sections were rated as favorable or unfavorable toward the treatment drug. A stepwise method was used to identify undisclosed FCOIs for all SR authors. Results: Nineteen (of 51) authors representing 7 (of 12) SRs were found to have FCOI. Among reviews with conflicted authors, 3 of 7 (42.9%) results sections were favorable toward the treatment drug, whereas 6 of 7 (85.7%) conclusions were rated as favorable. Discussion and Conclusions: More than one-third of SR authors and nearly two-thirds of studies were found to have FCOIs. Our investigation shows that financial ties are frequent among SR authors on AUD pharmacotherapies and that discussion sections often favored the drug for which the sponsor provided payments.

Previous studies have established a baseline of minimal reproducibility in the social science and biomedical literature. Clinical research is especially deficient in factors of reproducibility. Surgical journals contain fewer clinical trials than non-surgical ones, suggesting that it should be easier to reproduce the outcomes of surgical literature. In this study, we evaluated a broad range of indicators related to transparency and reproducibility in a random sample of 300 articles published in surgery-related journals between 2014 and 2018. A minority of our sample made available their materials (2/186, 95% C.I. 0–2.2%), protocols (1/196, 0–1.3%), data (19/196, 6.3–13%), or analysis scripts (0/196, 0–1.9%). Only one study was adequately pre-registered. No studies were explicit replications of previous literature. Most studies (162/292 50–61%) declined to provide a funding statement, and few declared conflicts of interest (22/292, 4.8–11%). Most have not been cited by systematic reviews (183/216, 81–89%) or meta-analyses (188/216, 83–91%), and most were behind a paywall (187/292, 58–70%). The transparency of surgical literature could improve with adherence to baseline standards of reproducibility.

BACKGROUND:Study reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study improve its potential for reproduction. Efforts to reproduce noteworthy studies in the biomedical sciences have resulted in an overwhelming majority of them being found to be unreplicable, causing concern for the integrity of research in other fields, including medical specialties. Here, we analyzed the reproducibility of studies in the field of pulmonology.METHODS:500 pulmonology articles were randomly selected from an initial PubMed search for data extraction. Two authors scoured these articles for reproducibility indicators including materials, protocols, raw data, analysis scripts, inclusion in systematic reviews, and citations by replication studies as well as other factors of research transparency including open accessibility, funding source and competing interest disclosures, and study preregistration.FINDINGS:Few publications included statements regarding materials (10%), protocols (1%), data (15%), and analysis script (0%) availability. Less than 10% indicated preregistration. More than half of the publications analyzed failed to provide a funding statement. Conversely, 63% of the publications were open access and 73% included a conflict of interest statement.INTERPRETATION:Overall, our study indicates pulmonology research is currently lacking in efforts to increase replicability. Future studies should focus on providing sufficient information regarding materials, protocols, raw data, and analysis scripts, among other indicators, for the sake of clinical decisions that depend on replicable or refutable results from the primary literature.

Objectives It has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Results A total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols. Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

Introduction: We aimed to assess the reproducibility of empirical research by determining the availability of components required for replication of a study, including materials, raw data, analysis scripts, protocols, and preregistration. Methods: We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify MEDLINE-indexed emergency medicine (EM) journals. Thirty journals met the inclusion criteria. From January 1, 2014–December 31, 2018, 300 publications were randomly sampled using a PubMed search. Additionally, we included four high-impact general medicine journals, which added 106 publications. Two investigators were blinded for independent extraction. Extracted data included statements regarding the availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocols, and registration. Results: After the search, we found 25,473 articles, from which we randomly selected 300. Of the 300, only 287 articles met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we added 106 publications from high-impact journals of which 77 met the inclusion criteria. Together, 364 publications were included, of which 212 articles contained empirical data to analyze. Of the eligible empirical articles, 2.49%, (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33% to 4.64%] provided a material statement, 9.91% (95% CI, 5.88% to 13.93%) provided a data statement, 0 provided access to analysis scripts, 25.94% (95% CI, 20.04% to 31.84%) linked the protocol, and 39.15% (95% CI, 32.58% to 45.72%) were preregistered. Conclusion: Studies in EM lack indicators required for reproducibility. The majority of studies fail to report factors needed to reproduce research to ensure credibility. Thus, an intervention is required and can be achieved through the collaboration of researchers, peer reviewers, funding agencies, and journals.

Objective: Reproducibility is a core tenet of scientific research. A reproducible study is one where the results can be recreated by different investigators in different circumstances using the same methodology and materials. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the majority of research is currently adherent. Methods: We objectively evaluated 300 trials in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology for fourteen indicators of reproducibility. These indicators include availability of data, analysis scripts, pre-registration information, study protocols and whether or not the study was available via Open Access. We also assessed the trials for financial conflict of interest statements and source of funding. Results: Of the 300 trials in our sample, 208 contained empirical data that could be assessed for reproducibility. None of the trials in our sample provided a link to their protocols or provided a statement on availability of materials. None were replication studies. Just 10.58% provided a statement regarding their data availability, while only 5.82% provided a statement on preregistration. 25.85% failed to report the presence or absence of conflicts of interest and 54.08% did not state the origin of their funding. Conclusion: Research in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology is not consistently reproducible and frequently lacks conflict of interest disclosure. Consequences of this could be far-reaching and include increased research waste, widespread acceptance of misleading results and erroneous conclusions guiding clinical decision-making.

Journal of Evidence-Based MedicineVolume 14, Issue 4 p. 281-284 LETTER An evaluation of reproducibility and transparency indicators in orthopedic literature Ian Fladie, Corresponding Author Ian Fladie Ian.fladie10@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-0426 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma Correspondence Ian Fladie, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St., Tulsa, OK 74107. Email: Ian.fladie10@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorSheridan Evans, Sheridan Evans Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorJake Checketts, Jake Checketts Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorDaniel Tritz, Daniel Tritz Department of Radiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorBrent Norris, Brent Norris Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorMatt Vassar, Matt Vassar Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this author Ian Fladie, Corresponding Author Ian Fladie Ian.fladie10@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-0426 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma Correspondence Ian Fladie, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St., Tulsa, OK 74107. Email: Ian.fladie10@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorSheridan Evans, Sheridan Evans Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorJake Checketts, Jake Checketts Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorDaniel Tritz, Daniel Tritz Department of Radiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorBrent Norris, Brent Norris Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this authorMatt Vassar, Matt Vassar Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OklahomaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 October 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12457Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume14, Issue4December 2021Pages 281-284 RelatedInformation

BACKGROUND:The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications.METHODS:The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access.RESULTS:Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis.CONCLUSIONS:Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

IntroductionReliable, high-quality research is essential to the field of anaesthesiology. Reproducibility and transparency have been investigated in the biomedical domain and in the social sciences, with both lacking to provide necessary information to reproduce the study findings. In this study, we investigated 14 indicators of reproducibility in anaesthesiology research.MethodsWe used the National Library of Medicine catalogue to search for all anaesthesiology journals that are MEDLINE indexed and provide English texts. PubMed was searched with the list of journals to identify all publications from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 450 publications that fit the inclusion criteria for our analysis. Data extraction was then conducted in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form.ResultsThe PubMed search of these journals identified 171 441 publications, with 28 310 being within the time frame. From the 450 publications sampled, 444 full-text publications were accessible. The majority of publications analysed did not have a statement regarding availability of data (164/188), analysis scripts (187/188), or study materials (160/188).ConclusionsAnaesthesiology research needs to improve indicators of reproducibility and transparency. By making research publicly available and improving accessibility to detailed study components, primary research can be reproduced in subsequent studies and help contribute to the development of new practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND:Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility.AIMS:In this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of psychiatry using specific indicators as proxies for these practices.METHODS:An increasing number of publications have investigated indicators of reproducibility, including research by Harwicke et al, from which we based the methodology for our observational, cross-sectional study. From a random 5-year sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate, blinded fashion using a piloted Google form. The publications were examined for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included availability of: materials, data, protocol, analysis script, open-access, conflict of interest, funding and online preregistration.RESULTS:This study ultimately evaluated 296 randomly-selected publications with a 3.20 median impact factor. Only 107 were available online. Most primary authors originated from USA, UK and the Netherlands. The top three publication types were cohort studies, surveys and clinical trials. Regarding indicators of reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, four provided in-depth protocol and one contained raw data required to reproduce the outcomes. One publication offered its analysis script on request; four provided a protocol availability statement. Only 107 publications were publicly available: 13 were registered in online repositories and four, ten and eight publications included their hypothesis, methods and analysis, respectively. Conflict of interest was addressed by 177 and reported by 31 publications. Of 185 publications with a funding statement, 153 publications were funded and 32 were unfunded.CONCLUSIONS:Currently, Psychiatry research has significant potential to improve adherence to reproducibility and transparency practices. Thus, this study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in Psychiatry literature. Future assessments are recommended to evaluate and encourage progress.

AIMSPerhaps the most important step when designing and conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in addiction is to put methodological safeguards in place to minimize the likelihood for bias to affect trial outcomes. In this study, we applied the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to RCTs of drug, alcohol or tobacco interventions.METHODSWe searched for trials published in 15 addiction medicine journals over a 7-year period. Our primary endpoint is the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded trials.RESULTSOverall, included RCTs were most often at high risk of bias per our judgments (244/487, 50.1%). However, significant proportions of included RCTs were at low risk of bias (123/487, 25.3%) or some concerns for bias (120/497, 24.6%). RCTs with behavioral modification interventions (19/44, 43.2%) and alcohol interventions (80/150, 53.3%) had the highest proportion of high-risk judgments. In a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded RCTs), 195/386 (50.5%) were at high risk of bias.CONCLUSIONSApproximately half of included drug, alcohol or tobacco RCTs in our sample were judged to be at high risk of bias with the most common reason being a lack of proper blinding or proper description of blinding. Key action items to reduce bias in future addiction RCTs include adequate randomization, blinding and inclusion of a trial registry number and protocol.

Background Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. Purpose To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility. Methods This cross-sectional retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for publications contained within journals in the field of radiology. Our inclusion criteria were being MEDLINE indexed, written in English, and published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications for this study. A pilot-tested Google form was used to record information from the publications regarding indicators of reproducibility. Following peer-review, we extracted data from an additional 200 publications in an attempt to reproduce our initial results. The additional 200 publications were selected from the list of initially randomized publications. Results Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met inclusion criteria and 6 did not. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% (11/195, [3.0–8.3]) contained a data availability statement, 0.51% (1/195) provided clear documented raw data, 12.0% (23/191, [8.4–15.7]) provided a materials availability statement, 0% provided analysis scripts, 4.1% (8/195, [1.9–6.3]) provided a pre-registration statement, 2.1% (4/195, [0.4–3.7]) provided a protocol statement, and 3.6% (7/195, [1.5–5.7]) were pre-registered. The validation study of the 5 key indicators of reproducibility—availability of data, materials, protocols, analysis scripts, and pre-registration—resulted in 2 indicators (availability of protocols and analysis scripts) being reproduced, as they fell within the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions from the original sample. However, materials’ availability and pre-registration proportions from the validation sample were lower than what was found in the original sample. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce studies contained in radiology publications may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.

AIM:The fragility index is calculated by changing one outcome event to a nonevent within a trial until the associated P value exceeds 0.05. In this study, we assessed the robustness, risk of bias (RoB), and power of randomized controlled trials that underlie recommendations set forth by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) on managing dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori infections. METHODS:All citations referenced in the guidelines were screened for inclusion criteria. The fragility indexes for eligible trials were then calculated. The likelihood and sources of bias in the included trials were evaluated by the Cochrane 'RoB' Tool 2.0. RESULTS:The median fragility index for the 52 trials was three events. Five studies (9.6%) resulted in a fragility index of 0 when statistical analysis was applied. For the 52 trials, 12 (23.1%) were at a low RoB, 15 (28.8%) had some concerns, and 25 (48.1%) were at a high RoB. High RoB was most commonly due to bias of selection in the reported result (15.5%). CONCLUSION:A median of three events was needed to nullify statistical significance in 52 trials that underpin guideline recommendations on the management of dyspepsia and H. pylori infections. In addition, concerns for RoB were found for these trials.

Background: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of reproducibility in the field of addiction science. Design: Cross-sectional design. Measurements: The National Library of Medicine catalog was searched for all journals using the subject terms tag: Substance-Related Disorders [ST]. Journals were then searched via PubMed to identify publications from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018; 300 publications were randomly selected from among those identified. A pilot-tested Google form containing reproducibility/transparency characteristics was used for data extraction in a duplicated and blinded fashion by two investigators. Findings: Slightly more than half of the publications were open access (152/300, 50.70%). Few publications had pre-registration (7/244, 2.87%), material availability (2/237, 0.84%), protocol availability (3/244, 1.23%), data availability (28/244, 11.48%), or analysis script availability (2/244, 0.82%). Most publications provided a conflict of interest statement (221/293, 75.43%) and funding sources (268/293, 91.47%). One replication study was reported (1/244, 0.4%). Conclusion: Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are lacking, thus, there is room for improvement. In particular, investigators should pre-register studies prior to commencement. Researchers should also make the materials, data, and analysis script publicly available. Further, individuals should be transparent about funding sources for the project and financial conflicts of interest. Research stakeholders should work together toward improvements on these matters. With such protections, the field of addiction medicine can better disseminate the information necessary to treat patients.

Objectives/Hypothesis Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is consequently critical. We sought to assess the transparency and reproducibility of research studies in otolaryngology by evaluating a random sample of publications in otolaryngology journals between 2014 and 2018. Study Design Review of published literature for reproducible and transparent research practices. Methods We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Specific indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices were evaluated in a blinded, independent, and duplicate manner using a pilot-tested Google form. Results Our initial search returned 26,498 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 286 met inclusion criteria and 14 did not. Among the empirical studies, 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%-3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI: 2.7%-7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI: 1.7%-6.1%) were preregistered. None of the publications had a clear statement claiming to replicate, or to be a replication of, another study. Conclusions Inadequate reproducibility practices exist in otolaryngology. Nearly all studies in our analysis lacked a data or material availability statement, did not link to an accessible protocol, and were not preregistered. Taking steps to improve reproducibility would likely improve patient care. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 2019

Background and aims: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. This aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of addiction science. Design: Cross-sectional designMeasurements: This study used the National Library of Medicine catalog to search for all journals using the subject terms tag: Substance-Related Disorders [ST]. Journals were then searched via PubMed in the timeframe of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 and 300 publications were randomly selected. A pilot-tested Google form containing reproducibility/transparency characteristics was used for data extraction by two investigators who performed this process in a duplicate and blinded fashion. Findings: Slightly more than half of the publications were open access (152/293, 50.7%). Few publications had pre-registration (7/244, 2.87%), material availability (2/237, 1.23%), protocol availability (3/244 ,0.80%), data availability (28/244, 11.48%), and analysis script availability (2/244, 0.82%). Most publications provided a conflict of interest statement (221/293, 75.42%) and funding sources (268/293, 91.47%). One replication study was reported (1/244, 0.04%). Few publications were cited (64/238, 26.89%) and 0 were excluded from meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews.Conclusion: Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are lacking, and thus, there is much room for improvement. First, investigators should preregister studies prior to commencement. Researchers should also make the materials, data, analysis script publicly available. To foster reproducibility, individuals should remain transparent about funding sources for the project and financial conflicts of interest. Research stakeholders should work together toward improved solutions on these matters. With these protections in place, the field of addiction medicine can lead in dissemination of information necessary to treat patients.