Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

International multistakeholder consensus statement on post-publication integrity issues in randomized clinical trials by Cairo Consensus Group

The number of retractions of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) following post-publication allegations of misconduct is increasing. To address this issue, we aimed to establish an international multistakeholder consensus on post-publication integrity concerns related to RCTs. After prospective registration (https://osf.io/njksm), we assembled a multidisciplinary stakeholder group comprising 48 participants from 18 countries across six continents, recruited using a curated list of journal editors and snowballing. An underpinning evidence synthesis collated 89 articles related to post-publication integrity concerns. Integrity statements related to RCTs created were subjected to anonymized two-round Delphi survey. A hybrid face-to-face-online consensus development meeting was convened to consolidate the consensus. The response rates of the two Delphi survey rounds were 65% (31/48) and 67% (32/ 48), respectively. There were 101 and 41 statements in the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. After the two Delphi rounds and the consensus development meeting, consensus was achieved on 104 statements consolidated to 84 after merging, editing, and removing duplicates. This set of statements included general aspects (n = 9), journal instructions (n = 14), editorial and peer review (n = 7), correspondence and complaints (n = 4), investigations for integrity concerns (n = 16), decisions and sanctions (n = 9), critical appraisal guidance (n = 1), systematic reviews of RCTs (n = 8), and research recommendations (n = 16). In conclusion, this international multistakeholder consensus statement aimed to underpin policies for preventing post-publication integrity concerns in RCT publications and assist in improving investigations of misconduct allegations.

Perceptions of research integrity and open science practices: a survey of Brazilian dental researchers

The objective of this study was to evaluate Brazilian dental researchers' perceptions of research integrity and open science practices, as well as their perceptions of the way researchers are evaluated for promotion, hiring, and receiving grants. In a self-administered online survey, the respondents were presented with 3 questions on researcher evaluation in Brazil. Additionally, for 25 academic activities or characteristics, researchers rated their perceived importance for a) career advancement, b) science advancement, c) personal satisfaction, and d) social impact. The questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,179 dental researchers working in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil. Multilevel regressions were performed to statistically confirm the differences between the predefined subgroups. Three hundred and fifty-five (16%) researchers completed the survey. Most respondents (96.1%) considered the current evaluation system to be flawed and indicated the need for improvement. Non-traditional activities were considered more important than traditional ones for science advancement (p < 0.01), and social impact (p < 0.01), whereas traditional activities were perceived to be more important only for career advancement (p < 0.01). Although Brazilian dental researchers recognize the value of open science and research integrity practices for science advancement and impact on society, they perceive that the current evaluation system emphasizes traditional activities, such as publishing many papers in well-recognized journals as criteria for advancing their careers.

Are open science practices in dentistry associated with higher Altmetric scores and citation rates?

AIM

Open science, a set of principles and practices, aims to make scientific research more accessible and accountable, benefiting scientists and society. This study evaluated whether adopting open science practices (OSPs) correlates with higher citation rates and Altmetric scores.

METHODS

A random sample of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on dental caries published between 2000 and 2022 was selected. A systematic PubMed search identified relevant RCTs, and data on OSPs - study registration, open methodology, open software, open scripts, open analysis plan, open data, open peer review, and open access (OA) - were manually collected by two independent assessors. The Robot Reviewer tool automatically evaluated the risk of bias (RoB). Outcomes included the total number of citations and the Altmetric Attention Score. Associations between OSPs, RoB, and other explanatory variables with the outcomes were assessed using binomial negative regression analysis, and expressed as Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR; α =0.05).

RESULTS

In total, 323 papers were analysed. At least one OSP was adopted in 57.5 % (n = 186) of the articles, dropping to 39.6 % (n = 128) without OA. Papers with protocol registration (IRR: 1.45; 95 % CI: 1.15, 1.82) and OA publication (IRR: 1.24; 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.53) had higher citation rates. Conversely, papers in full OA journals had fewer citations (IRR: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.87). After adjusting for RoB, low-risk studies showed higher citation rates (IRR: 1.48; 95 % CI: 1.14, 1.91), while OA lost significance. For Altmetric scores, registered and OA manuscripts showed higher scores (IRR: 3.74; 95 % CI: 2.00, 7.01; IRR: 1.69; 95 % CI: 1.04, 2.75), with registration remaining significant after adjusting for RoB and impact factor (IRR: 3.71; 95 % CI: 1.97-6.99).

CONCLUSION

The adoption of OSPs demonstrated a partial correlation with citation rates and Altmetric scores in RCTs on dental caries; however, these effects are complex and seem more related to the journal's impact factor.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The citations and the attention to clinical trials in dentistry, which could drive clinical decision-making and the elaboration of policies and recommendations, seem to be driven more by the journal's prestige than by the adoption of OSPs.

Is requiring Research Integrity Advisors a useful policy for improving research integrity? A census of advisors in Australia

Research Integrity Advisors are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness.

Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools

Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)-in particular, large language models like ChatGPT-has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials-new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications.

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Prevalence and factors associated with mental illness symptoms among school students post lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates: A cross-sectional national study

Limited data exists on the mental health of children in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study aimed to fill this gap by examining the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and risk for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among school students in post-lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. A sample of 3,745 school students participated, responding to standardized tests (Mood and Feeling Questionnaire-Child Self-Report, Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders-Child Version, and Children's Revised Impact of Event Scale-8). Findings showed that the risk for PTSD was the most prevalent (40.6%), followed by symptoms of anxiety (23.3%), and depression (17.1%). For gender differences, symptoms of the three conditions (depression, anxiety, and PTSD) were higher in female students (9.2%) compared to male peers (7.7%) (p = 0.09). Moreover, symptoms of depression and anxiety were found to be higher among late adolescents (p<0.05). Further analysis revealed that having medical problems was a positive predictor for anxiety (OR = 2.0, p<0.01) and risk for PTSD (OR = 1.3, p = 0.002); similarly, witnessing the death of a close family member due to COVID-19 (OR for depression, anxiety, and PTSD = 1.7, p<0.01) were positive predictors associated with PTDS, depression, and anxiety. The study concluded that post COVID-19 lockdown, symptoms of anxiety, depression, and risk for PTSD were found to be prevalent among school students in the UAE. Researchers put forward recommendations on the initiation of a national school mental health screening program, the provision of follow-up services for vulnerable students, and the integration of a mental health support system in the disaster preparedness plans.

Correction: Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270054.].