1
|
Chien PFW, Elsuity MA, Rashwan MM, Núñez-Núñez M, Khan KS, Zamora-Romero J, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Fawzy M. Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2024. [PMID: 38571333 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Revised: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/10/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter. OBJECTIVES We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs. SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated. MAIN RESULTS The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains. CONCLUSIONS Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick F W Chien
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RCSI and UCD Malaysia Campus, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Mohamad A Elsuity
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt
- Ibnsina, Amshaj & Ajyal IVF Centers, Sohag, Egypt
| | - Mosab M Rashwan
- Department of Forensic Medicine & Clinical Toxocology, Faculty of Medine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt
| | - María Núñez-Núñez
- Pharmacy Department, University, Hospital Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP-Spain), Madrid, Spain
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Zamora-Romero
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP-Spain), Madrid, Spain
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
| | - Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP-Spain), Madrid, Spain
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Spain
| | - Mohamed Fawzy
- IbnSina (Sohag), Banon (Assiut), Qena (Qena), Amshag (Sohag) IVF Facilities, Sohag, Assiut, Qena, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 12:49-73. [PMID: 34721740 PMCID: PMC8550012 DOI: 10.1007/s13164-018-0414-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Recent replication crises in psychology and other fields have led to intense reflection about the validity of common research practices. Much of this reflection has focussed on reporting standards, and how they may be related to the questionable research practices that could underlie a high proportion of irreproducible findings in the published record. As a developing field, it is particularly important for Experimental Philosophy to avoid some of the pitfalls that have beset other disciplines. To this end, here we provide a detailed, comprehensive assessment of current reporting practices in Experimental Philosophy. We focus on the quality of statistical reporting and the disclosure of information about study methodology. We assess all the articles using quantitative methods (n = 134) that were published over the years 2013–2016 in 29 leading philosophy journals. We find that null hypothesis significance testing is the prevalent statistical practice in Experimental Philosophy, although relying solely on this approach has been criticised in the psychological literature. To augment this approach, various additional measures have become commonplace in other fields, but we find that Experimental Philosophy has adopted these only partially: 53% of the papers report an effect size, 28% confidence intervals, 1% examined prospective statistical power and 5% report observed statistical power. Importantly, we find no direct relation between an article’s reporting quality and its impact (numbers of citations). We conclude with recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in Experimental Philosophy, to facilitate making research statistically-transparent and reproducible.
Collapse
|
3
|
Malički M, Jerončić A, Aalbersberg IJJ, Bouter L, Ter Riet G. Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017. Nat Commun 2021; 12:5840. [PMID: 34611157 PMCID: PMC8492806 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-26027-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mario Malički
- Urban Vitality Centre of Expertise, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Ana Jerončić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | | | - Lex Bouter
- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gerben Ter Riet
- Urban Vitality Centre of Expertise, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rousi AM. Ethical review and informed consent guidelines of high impact anthropology, business, and education research journals. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
5
|
Nicoll LH, Oermann MH, Chinn PL, Conklin JL, Amarasekara S, McCarty M. Guidance Provided to Authors on Citing and Formatting References in Nursing Journals. J Nurses Prof Dev 2018; 34:54-59. [PMID: 29346137 PMCID: PMC5841848 DOI: 10.1097/nnd.0000000000000430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
Reference citations should be accurate, complete, and presented in a consistent format. This study analyzed information provided to authors on preparing citations and references for manuscripts submitted to nursing journals (n = 209). Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style. Slightly more than half provided examples of how to cite articles and books; there were fewer examples of citing websites and online journals. Suggestions on improving accuracy of references are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leslie H Nicoll
- Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN, is Editor-in-Chief, CIN: Computers, Informatics Nursing and Nurse Author & Editor, and President and Owner, Maine Desk LLC, Portland. Marilyn H. Oermann, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN, is Thelma M. Ingles Professor of Nursing and Director of Evaluation and Educational Research, Duke University School of Nursing, and Editor, Nurse Educator and Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Durham, North Carolina. Peggy L. Chinn, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Editor, Advances in Nursing Science, and Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs. Jamie L. Conklin, MSLIS, is Research & Education Librarian and Liaison to the School of Nursing, Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Durham, North Carolina. Sathya Amarasekara, MS, is Statistician III, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina. Midori McCarty, MA, is Clinical Research Coordinator, Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Oermann MH, Nicoll LH, Chinn PL, Conklin JL, McCarty M, Amarasekara S. Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2018; 50:333-340. [PMID: 29645403 PMCID: PMC5969104 DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/28/2017] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
Purpose The aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals. Design Content analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website. Methods Using Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team. Findings Author guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Conclusions Author guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision. Clinical Relevance Nurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marilyn H Oermann
- Thelma M. Ingles Professor of Nursing, Director of Evaluation and Educational Research, Duke University School of Nursing; Editor, Nurse Educator and Journal of Nursing Care Quality, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Leslie H Nicoll
- Editor-in-Chief, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing and Nurse Author & Editor, President and Owner, Maine Desk LLC, Portland, ME, USA
| | - Peggy L Chinn
- Editor, Advances in Nursing Science; Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT, USA
| | - Jamie L Conklin
- Research & Education Librarian, Liaison to the School of Nursing, Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Midori McCarty
- Clinical Research Coordinator, Duke Office of Clinical Research, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Polonioli A. A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy. SYNTHESE 2017; 196:3841-3867. [PMID: 31404228 PMCID: PMC6656791 DOI: 10.1007/s11229-017-1628-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2017] [Accepted: 11/13/2017] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and transparency. If naturalistic philosophers wish to reduce bias in their research, they should then supplement their traditional tools for literature search and review by including systematic methodologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Polonioli
- Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, 3 Elms Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Polonioli A. New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2017; 23:1009-1034. [PMID: 27896613 PMCID: PMC5539259 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2016] [Accepted: 10/21/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Polonioli
- Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, 3 Elms Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Udovik EE, Baryshnikov AA, Kitas GD. The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32:173-179. [PMID: 28049225 PMCID: PMC5219980 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2016] [Accepted: 11/27/2016] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the 'obsession' with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Armen Yuri Gasparyan
- Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
| | | | - Marlen Yessirkepov
- Department of Biochemistry, Biology and Microbiology, South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| | - Elena E Udovik
- Department of Economy and Financial Management, Kuban State Technological University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
| | - Aleksandr A Baryshnikov
- Department of Development and Exploitation of Oil and Gas Fields, Industrial University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russian Federation
| | - George D Kitas
- Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK
- Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
|