Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).

CONCLUSION

This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors

OBJECTIVES

To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular.

RESULTS

In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD.

CONCLUSION

About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

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).

High impact nutrition and dietetics journals' use of publication procedures to increase research transparency

BACKGROUND

The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and the failure of peer review journals to identify and correct these practices. In response, it has been proposed that journals employ editorial procedures designed to improve the transparency of published research.

OBJECTIVE

The present study examines the adoption of editorial procedures designed to improve the reporting of empirical studies in the field of nutrition and dietetics research.

DESIGN

The instructions for authors of 43 journals included in Quartiles 1 and 2 of the Clarivate Analytics' 2018 Journal Citation Report category Nutrition and Dietetics were reviewed. For journals that published original research, conflict of interest disclosure, recommendation of reporting guidelines, registration of clinical trials, registration of other types of studies, encouraging data sharing, and use of the Registered Reports were assessed. For journals that only published reviews, all of the procedures except clinical trial registration were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three journals published original research and 10 published only reviews. Conflict of interest disclosure was required by all 33 original research journals. Use of guidelines, trial registration and encouragement of data sharing were mentioned by 30, 27 and 25 journals, respectively. Registration of other studies was required by eight and none offered Registered Reports as a publication option at the time of the review. All 10 review journals required conflict of interest disclosure, four recommended data sharing and three the use of guidelines. None mentioned the other two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While nutrition journals have adopted a number of procedures designed to improve the reporting of research findings, their limited effects likely result from the mechanisms through which they influence analytic flexibility and selective reporting and the extent to which they are properly implemented and enforced by journals.

Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

The advent of open access publishing has allowed for unrestricted and rapid knowledge dissemination and can generate higher citation levels. However, the establishment of predatory journals exploits this model and may lead to publication of non-peer reviewed work.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the characteristics and trends of indexed publications in paediatric urology. The primary outcomes were to compare open access vs non-open access publishing. The secondary outcome was to assess whether any open access publications in this cohort could be classified as predatory based on journal data basing and external peer review policies.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase reviews were carried out for any publication using the terms 'p(a)ediatric urology' over a 5-year period (October 2012-2017). These publications were individually accessed, assessed for relevance and cross-checked using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Report. Bibliometric data, journal type and access model were all individually assessed, ranked and compared using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

From an initial total of 4075 indexed publications, 2244 journal publications across 51 countries were included based on relevance, of which 611 were open access. Open access journals were significantly more likely to publish basic science/laboratory versus clinical publications (10.9% vs 3.3%). They were more likely have higher average citations/publication (17 vs. 8), but there was no difference between open and closed journal impact factors (3.1 vs. 2.7). The overall rate of open access, indexed publications that were not peer reviewed and/or included in open access databases was 6.5% DISCUSSION: The overall numbers of paediatric urological articles appearing on PubMed between 2012 and 2017 have increased by approximately 75%, while the number of open access articles has remained relatively static (25%). Researchers may prefer to publish in specific journals to disseminate results to a particular audience or fear in the current climate that an open access journal may not be considered legitimate, and possibly even predatory, thus having a negative impact on the data and the author's reputation. The impact factor status and route/method of publication may be less important.

CONCLUSIONS

Open access, peer reviewed publishing allows rapid international knowledge dissemination. The exact objective definition of what constitutes a predatory journal remains controversial. We have identified a time-stable prevalence of 6.5% open access publications that could meet proposed criteria for a 'borderline/predatory journal'; however, this should not influence the decision to publish in open access journals.

Do Addiction Science Journals Endorse Unbiased Reporting of Research? A Systematic Evaluation of Instructions for Authors

Introduction: Well-structured instructions for authors in journals help researchers in reporting unbiased results, which subsequently facilitates the review process. There have been reports of systematic evaluations of instructions for authors from journals in various medical specialties. However, precise information on the nature and extent of these instructions for authors in addiction science is lacking. Hence, this study systematically evaluated the instructions for authors for journals in addiction science. Methods: A total of 1139 journal titles were retrieved across multiple databases. Finally, 88 exclusive titles fulfilling the eligibility criteria were considered in this study. The four domains evaluated were journal characteristics, reporting, statistical reporting, and ethical requirements. Results: More than half of the journals were published by academic institutions or professional societies. Less than one-fourth of the journals endorsed adherence to various reporting guidelines and endorsed the Consolidated Statements on Randomized Controlled Trials guidelines to the maximum level (14.8%). Approximately, half (48.9%) of the journals had a separate section on "statistical analysis." The various parameters of statistical reporting were suboptimally endorsed. Conclusion/Importance: The instructions for authors in addiction science journals provide insufficient information in various domains. There is an urgent need to improve the author instructions segment of addiction science journals so that the process of research dissemination can occur more effectively. A higher rate of endorsement of various reporting guidelines and statistical reporting may help to minimize reporting bias as well as prevent unnecessary delays in the publication of important research findings.

A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies

BACKGROUND

The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies.

METHODS

The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors (≥ 1.452 and ≤ 1.436, respectively).

RESULTS

Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P = .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P = .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P = .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P = .001), registration of clinical trials (P = .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal.

Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting

BACKGROUND

The reporting of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is of vital importance. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between structure format and RCT abstracts' quality of methodology reporting, informed by the current requirement and usage of structure formats by leading general medical/internal medicine journals (secondary objective).

METHODS

A two-part cross-sectional study. First, through hand searches, we identified all RCTs published in the top-50 high-impact general medical/internal medicine journals during July-December 2015 (n = 370), and retrieved the 'instructions to authors' of these journals. From these, we extracted the actual usage of structure formats and headings, as well as relevant journal policies. Then, after a pilot study and sample size calculation, we assessed the methodology reporting quality of 176 IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 165 HS (Highly Structured) RCT abstracts sampled from 33 of the 50 selected journals, using a 9-item checklist developed based on the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (primary outcome: overall quality score, OQS; score range 0 to 9).

RESULTS

88% (324/370) of all identified RCT abstracts were structured, among which 66% (215/324) used the IMRaD format and 34% (109/324) used HS. According to journals' 'instructions to authors', 48% (24/50) journals required IMRaD, 32% (16/50) required HS, 8% (4/50) required unstructured, while the rest did not state any requirement on structure format. According to generalised estimation equation analysis adjusting for potential confounders and clustering effects, the OQS of HS abstracts was 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, p = 0.028) higher than IMRaD abstracts. More HS abstracts reported study setting (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 1.7 to 10.0; p = 0.001), definition of the main outcome measure (2.5; 1.3 to 4.9; p = 0.006) and the time point for main outcome assessment (3.0; 1.5 to 6.2; p = 0.002), whereas more IMRaD abstracts described the unit of randomisation (0.4; 0.3 to 0.8; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

For RCT abstracts, the IMRaD format is more frequently used and required by leading general medical/internal medicine journals than the HS format. Abstracts in the HS format report trial methodology more completely than those in the IMRaD format.

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

RESULTS

We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015.

METHODS

We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Instructions to Prospective Authors by Indian Biomedical Journals: An Opportunity to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research

Journals provide instructions to prospective authors to facilitate the process of manuscript publication. The information provided under such instructions could be a potential opportunity to promote responsible conduct of research (RCR). We analyzed 74 Indian biomedical journals for the type of information provided in the “instructions to authors” section and adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations. Among the 71 journals that had an “instructions to authors” section, 53 journals adhered to ICMJE recommendations. We discuss sections of the ICMJE recommendations detailed by Indian biomedical journals under the “instructions to authors” section and emphasize components that require greater exposure.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.

Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe

Publication ethics is an important aspect of both the research and publication enterprises. It is particularly important in the field of biomedical science because published data may directly affect human health. In this article, we examine publication ethics policies in biomedical journals published in Central and Eastern Europe. We were interested in possible differences between East European countries that are members of the European Union (Eastern EU) and South-East European countries (South-East Europe) that are not members of the European Union. The most common ethical issues addressed by all journals in the region were redundant publication, peer review process, and copyright or licensing details. Image manipulation, editors' conflicts of interest and registration of clinical trials were the least common ethical policies. Three aspects were significantly more common in journals published outside the EU: statements on the endorsement of international editorial standards, contributorship policy, and image manipulation. On the other hand, copyright or licensing information were more prevalent in journals published in the Eastern EU. The existence of significant differences among biomedical journals' ethical policies calls for further research and active measures to harmonize policies across journals.

[Open availability of articles and raw research data in Spanish pediatrics journals]

INTRODUCTION

The open Access to publications and the raw data allows its re-use and enhances the advancement of science. The aim of this paper is to identify these practices in Spanish pediatrics journals.

METHOD

We reviewed the author's instructions in 13 Spanish pediatrics journals, identifying their open access and deposit policy.

RESULTS

Eight journals allow open access without restriction, and 5 provide information on the ability to re-use and depositing data in repositories or websites.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the journals have open access, but do not promote the deposit of additional material or articles in repositories or websites.

Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions

Background

Trial registration and the reporting of trial results are essential to increase transparency in clinical research. Although both have been strongly promoted in recent years, it remains unclear whether they have been successfully implemented in surgery and surgery-related disciplines. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in surgery journals requiring trial registration in their author instructions were indeed registered, and whether the study results of registered RCTs had been submitted to the trial register and were thus publicly available.

Methods

The ten highest ranked surgery journals requiring trial registration by impact factor (Journal Citation Reports, JCR, 2011) were chosen. We then searched MEDLINE (in PubMed) for RCTs published in the selected journals between 1 June 2012 and 31 December 2012. Any trials recruiting participants before 2004 were excluded because the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) first proposed trial registration in 2004. We then searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to assess whether the identified RCTs were indeed registered and whether the results of the registered RCTs were available in the register.

Results

The search retrieved 588 citations. Four hundred and sixty references were excluded in the first screening. A further 25 were excluded after full-text screening. A total of 103 RCTs were finally included. Eighty-five of these RCTs (83%) could be found via the ICTRP. For 7 of 59 (12%) RCTs, which were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, summary study data had been posted in the results database.

Conclusions

Although still not fully implemented, trial registration in surgery has gained momentum. In general, however, the submission of summary study data to ClinicalTrials.gov remains poor.

How psychiatry journals support the unbiased translation of clinical research. A cross-sectional study of editorial policies

INTRODUCTION

Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration.

METHOD

Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended.

RESULTS

We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number.

DISCUSSION

Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.

"Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of medical journals requiring trial registration and to understand their reasons for adopting (or not adopting) such policies and other measures designed to reduce publication bias.

DESIGN

Quantitative study of journals' instructions to authors (in June 2012) and qualitative study of editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias (carried out in Autumn 2012).

SETTING

Random selection of 200 medical journals publishing clinical trials identified from the Cochrane CENTRAL database.

PARTICIPANTS

Editors (n=13) and publishers (n=3) of journals with different policies on trial registration (and with recently changed policies) identified from the survey of their instructions to authors.

RESULTS

Only 55/200 journals (28%) required trial registration according to their instructions and a further three (2%) encouraged it. The editors and publishers interviewed explained their journals' reluctance to require registration in terms of not wanting to lose out to rival journals, not wanting to reject otherwise sound articles or submissions from developing countries, and perceptions that such policies were not relevant to all journals. Some interviewees considered that registration was unnecessary for small or exploratory studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many major medical journals state that they will only publish clinical trials that have been prospectively registered, and such policies have been associated with a dramatic increase in the number of trials being registered, most smaller journals have not adopted such policies. Editors and publishers may be reluctant to require registration because they do not understand its benefits or because they fear that adopting such a policy would put their journal at a disadvantage to competitors.

Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals

PURPOSE

To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected.

RESULTS

While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89.7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70.2%) journals, 155 (38.8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22.6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14.8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0.022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57.1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations.