PROTOCOL PAPERS AS CATALYSTS FOR PUBLISHING NEW SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS IN A RAPIDLY EVOLVING SCHOLARLY ECOSYSTEM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n7.3978Keywords:
rotocol Papers, Open Science, Scholarly Communication, Peer Review, Open Access, Preprints, Research Transparency, Research InfrastructureAbstract
The academic publishing ecosystem is being reshaped by open science, platformization, and the growing expectation that research should be transparent, reusable, and timely. Protocol papers—peer-reviewed descriptions of planned methods published before results—are increasingly used to move scrutiny upstream, reduce selective reporting, and provide citable “method objects” that can be linked to data, code, and later outcome papers. Drawing on an integrative synthesis of publishing practices and policies, and using bibliometric signals reported for protocol papers indexed in Web of Science (2014–2023), this article analyzes how protocol-oriented publishing functions both as a dissemination mechanism and as a driver of innovation. The bibliometric evidence indicates large-scale uptake (119,461 protocol papers over 2014–2023), rapid growth in open access availability (from 60% in 2014 to 82% in 2023) , and diversification of dissemination pathways, including protocol-related preprints across multiple servers in 2023. We discuss innovations such as dual-platform publishing (repository + journal certification), open and post-publication peer review, and emerging automated checks based on reporting standards. We also examine tensions around quality assurance, inequitable access, and incentive structures that still prioritize “positive” results over robust processes. Finally, we propose a policy and practical roadmap for funders, institutions, publishers, and infrastructure providers aimed at building a sustainable, community-centered protocol publishing ecosystem.
References
Wang, W., Zhao, Y., & Pan, Y. (2025). Practice and inspiration of publishing new scientific research achievements: Taking protocol papers as an example. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals. https://doi.org/10.11946/cjstp.202505130496
Jones, G., & Abbasi, K. (2004). Trial protocols at the BMJ. BMJ, 329(7479), 1360. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7479.1360
The Editors of The Lancet. (2015). Protocol review at The Lancet: 1997–2015. The Lancet, 386(10012), 2456–2457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01131-9
Agha, R. A. (2016). Advancing research by publishing research protocols and negative studies. International Journal of Surgery Protocols, 1, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isjp.2016.06.001
Figueiredo, R. G., Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2023). Crafting a research protocol: A stepwise comprehensive approach. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 49(6), e20230371. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20230371
Kelley, L. A., Mezulis, S., Yates, C. M., Wass, M. N., & Sternberg, M. J. E. (2015). The Phyre2 web portal for protein modeling, prediction and analysis. Nature Protocols, 10(6), 845–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2015.053
Albericio, F. (2018). Welcome to the new journal Methods and Protocols. Methods and Protocols, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps1010001
Foster, E. D., & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.88
Chan, A.-W., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ, 346, e7586. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7586
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
von Elm, E., et al. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. PLOS Medicine, 4(10), e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
Shamseer, L., et al. (2015). PRISMA-P 2015: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
Cruz Rivera, S., et al. (2020). SPIRIT-AI extension: Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for artificial intelligence interventions. Nature Medicine, 26, 1351–1363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1037-7
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Piwowar, H., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
Wilkinson, M. D., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Munafò, M. R., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nosek, B. A., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered Reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49(3), 609–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.016
Chambers, C. D., & Mellor, D. (2018). Protocol transparency is vital for Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 797–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0449-6
Nosek, B. A., et al. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
