As a scientific community, we recognize that the need for reporting guidelines for microplastic methods is best addressed through a collaborative open science framework. With this goal in mind, the lead author sent out the following request on Twitter, and tagged several scientists in the microplastic community with a link to a collaborative document:
The collaborative document was hosted open access on Google Drive and researchers were invited to provide input on the reporting guidelines for microplastic research methods. Over the subsequent week, 15 contributors edited the shared document directly. After one week, all initial contributors were invited to be coauthors, and additional coauthors were invited by word of mouth throughout the process using an open-door policy. Overall, there were 23 authors on this project and 26 other people acknowledged for their assistance. In a meeting of coauthors, the threshold for co-authorship was set at one full day of effort (self-defined and self-reported), while the threshold for acknowledgement was to review the document at least once. Authors contributed to this publication and the reporting guideline documents. The first author, Win Cowger, led the collaboration and the author order after the first author was randomized by agreement of all coauthors.
The reporting guidelines were identified by referencing standard operating procedures used by various authors and other peer-reviewed publications. All authors agreed not to use language that would imply an intent to standardize methodology or recommend specific methods over others; this was beyond the scope of the work. The task of the authors in developing the reporting guidelines was to outline what should be reported about a method when the method was used to make the method reproducible and comparable. To determine which guidelines were essential to add to the documents, each author was asked to fill out a Google Form survey where they designated each reporting category as required or not. The final reporting guidelines were formed by keeping only the guidelines that 51% or more of the authors agreed upon. During the review process, we received requests by reviewers to add additional reporting requirements. Where they were not already accounted for, we added them to the reporting guidelines and indicated those additions using an asterisk throughout the produced documents. The final reporting guidelines were packaged into three documents which have the same information summarized with specific user groups in mind: (i) thorough, a Detailed Document, (ii) quick and simple, a Checklist (Table I ), and (iii) interactive, an online Mind Map (Figure 2 ).
The reporting guidelines were sent out to other colleagues in the field for an endorsement and critique designated as signatories in the acknowledgments. After the first week, we received 19 endorsements. The manuscript and supporting information were also subject to internal review at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and single blind peer review from Applied Spectroscopy. In these ways, we attempted to receive as much feedback as we could to develop reporting guidelines that reflect the diverse group of experts and the broad scope of methods in microplastic research. This framework represents an example of a way that scientists in any field can develop robust collaborations by sharing ideas and learning from one another while developing useful reference documents, even if they have not met before.
The collaborative document was hosted open access on Google Drive and researchers were invited to provide input on the reporting guidelines for microplastic research methods. Over the subsequent week, 15 contributors edited the shared document directly. After one week, all initial contributors were invited to be coauthors, and additional coauthors were invited by word of mouth throughout the process using an open-door policy. Overall, there were 23 authors on this project and 26 other people acknowledged for their assistance. In a meeting of coauthors, the threshold for co-authorship was set at one full day of effort (self-defined and self-reported), while the threshold for acknowledgement was to review the document at least once. Authors contributed to this publication and the reporting guideline documents. The first author, Win Cowger, led the collaboration and the author order after the first author was randomized by agreement of all coauthors.
The reporting guidelines were identified by referencing standard operating procedures used by various authors and other peer-reviewed publications. All authors agreed not to use language that would imply an intent to standardize methodology or recommend specific methods over others; this was beyond the scope of the work. The task of the authors in developing the reporting guidelines was to outline what should be reported about a method when the method was used to make the method reproducible and comparable. To determine which guidelines were essential to add to the documents, each author was asked to fill out a Google Form survey where they designated each reporting category as required or not. The final reporting guidelines were formed by keeping only the guidelines that 51% or more of the authors agreed upon. During the review process, we received requests by reviewers to add additional reporting requirements. Where they were not already accounted for, we added them to the reporting guidelines and indicated those additions using an asterisk throughout the produced documents. The final reporting guidelines were packaged into three documents which have the same information summarized with specific user groups in mind: (i) thorough, a Detailed Document, (ii) quick and simple, a Checklist (
The reporting guidelines were sent out to other colleagues in the field for an endorsement and critique designated as signatories in the acknowledgments. After the first week, we received 19 endorsements. The manuscript and supporting information were also subject to internal review at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and single blind peer review from Applied Spectroscopy. In these ways, we attempted to receive as much feedback as we could to develop reporting guidelines that reflect the diverse group of experts and the broad scope of methods in microplastic research. This framework represents an example of a way that scientists in any field can develop robust collaborations by sharing ideas and learning from one another while developing useful reference documents, even if they have not met before.
