Research integrity and peer review最新文献

Background: This study investigates the determinants of engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs), focusing on both individual-level factors (such as scholarly field, commitment to scientific norms, gender, contract type, and career stage) and institution-level factors (including industry type, researchers' perceptions of their research culture, and awareness of institutional policies on research integrity).

Methods: Using a multi-level modelling approach, we analyse data from an international survey of researchers working across disciplinary fields to estimate the effect of these factors on QRP engagement.

Results: Our findings indicate that contract type, career stage, academic field, adherence to scientific norms and gender significantly predict QRP engagement. At the institution level, factors such as being outside of a collegial culture and experiencing harmful publication pressure, and the presence of safeguards against integrity breaches have small associations. Only a minimal amount of variance in QRP engagement is attributable to differences between institutions and countries.

Conclusions: We discuss the implications of these findings for developing effective interventions to reduce QRPs, highlighting the importance of addressing both individual and institutional factors in efforts to foster research integrity.

Background: Preprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions.

Methods: Eligible preprints (n = 76) posted between May to August 2022 were identified through an established mpox literature database and followed to July 2024 for changes in publication status. Quality of preprints and published studies was assessed by two independent reviewers to evaluate changes in quality, using validated tools that were available for the study design (n = 33). Tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2); and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. The questions in each tool led to an overall quality assessment of high quality (no concerns with study design, conduct, and/or analysis), moderate quality (minor concerns) or low quality (several concerns). Changes in data (e.g. methods, outcomes, results) for preprint-published pairs (n = 60) were assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second.

Results: Preprints and published versions that could be evaluated for quality (n = 25 pairs) were mostly assessed as low quality. Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality, while some diagnostic test accuracy studies (3/5) improved or worsened their quality assessment scores. Among all pairs (n = 60), outcomes were often added in the published version (58%) and less commonly removed (18%). Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study.

Conclusions: This study suggests the minimal changes in quality, results and main conclusions from preprint to published versions supports the use of preprints, and the use of the same critical evaluation tools on preprints as applied to published studies, in decision-making during a public health emergency.

Background: Reporting conflicts of interest (COI) and sources of sponsorship are of paramount importance in adequately interpreting the results of systematic reviews. Some evidence suggests that there is an influence of COI and sponsorship on the study results. The objectives of this meta-research study were twofold: (a) to assess the reporting of COI and sponsorship statements in systematic reviews published in dentistry in three sources (abstract, journal's website and article's full text) and (b) to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and reporting of COI.

Methods: We searched the PubMed database for dental systematic reviews published from database inception to June 2023. We assessed how COI and sponsorship statements were reported in the three sources. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the reporting of COI.

Results: We assessed 924 abstracts published in PubMed and on the corresponding journals´ websites. Similarly, full texts associated with the 924 abstracts were also assessed. A total of 639 (69%) and 795 (88%) studies had no statement of COI in the abstracts on PubMed and the journal's website, respectively. In contrast, a COI statement was reported in 801 (87%) full texts. Sponsorship statements were not reported in 911 (99%) and 847 (93%) abstracts published in PubMed and a journal´s website, respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the full-text articles (N = 607) included sponsorship statements. Journal access was significantly associated with COI statement reporting in all three sources. Open-access journals have significantly higher odds to report COI in PubMed and full-texts, while have significantly lower odds to report COI in the websites, compared with subscription or hybrid journals. Abstract type was significantly associated with COI statement reporting on the journal's website and in the full text. Review registration based on the full text and the number of authors were significantly associated with COI statement reporting in PubMed and in the full texts. Several other variables were found to be significantly associated with COI statement reporting in one of the three sources.

Conclusions: COI and sponsorship statements seem to be underreported in the abstracts and homepage of the journals, compared to the full-texts. These results were particularly more pronounced in abstracts published in both the PubMed database and the journals' websites. Several characteristics of systematic reviews were associated with COI statement reporting.

Background: This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and ongoing practices of plagiarism among the journal editors of Nepal.

Methods: This web-based questionnaire analytical cross-sectional was conducted among journal editors working across various journals in Nepal. All journal editors from NepJOL-indexed journals in Nepal who provided e-consent were included in the study using a convenience sampling technique. A final set of questionnaires was prepared using Google Forms, including six knowledge questions, three practice questions (with subsets) for authors, and four (with subsets) for editors. These were distributed to journal editors in Nepal via email, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and WhatsApp. Reminders were sent weekly, up to three times. Data analysis was done in R software. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the demographic variables, correct responses regarding knowledge, and practices related to plagiarism. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean knowledge with demographic variables. For all tests, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: A total of 147 participants completed the survey.The mean age of the participants was found to be 43.61 ± 8.91 years. Nearly all participants were aware of plagiarism, and most had heard of both Turnitin and iThenticate. Slightly more than three-fourths correctly identified that citation and referencing can avoid plagiarism. The overall mean knowledge score was 5.32 ± 0.99, with no significant differences across demographic variables. As authors, 4% admitted to copying sections of others' work without acknowledgment and reusing their own published work without proper citations. Just over one-fifth did not use plagiarism detection software when writing research articles. Fewer than half reported that their journals used authentic plagiarism detection software. Four-fifths of them suspected plagiarism in the manuscripts assigned through their journal. Three out of every five participants reported the plagiarism used in the manuscript to the respective authors. Nearly all participants believe every journal must have plagiarism-detection software.

Conclusions: Although journal editors' knowledge and practices regarding plagiarism appear to be high, they are still not satisfactory. It is strongly recommended to use authentic plagiarism detection software by the journals and editors should be adequately trained and update their knowledge about it.

Background: The informed consent process is an important step in conducting ethical clinical trials, as it ensures that research participants are aware of their rights and responsibilities in clinical trials. This study explored participants' perceptions, experiences and the factors motivating their participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa.

Methods: This descriptive qualitative study was conducted among twenty-five adult participants (18 to 64 years old) who participated in a COVID-19 vaccine trial in South Africa. Three focus group discussions and fifteen semi-structured interviews were carried out. Data were collected at a Clinical Research Site located in Prince Mshiyeni Memorial Hospital, in Umlazi Township, Durban, South Africa, where the COVID-19 vaccine trial participants were initially enrolled. Data were analysed iteratively using a thematic analysis approach.

Results: Four key findings emerged: 1) Participants who experienced an event (such as tested positive for COVID-19) during the clinical trial were more likely to talk about the informed consent more thoroughly compared to the other participants. 2) Participants understood the purpose of informed consent process better when it was repeated multiple times throughout the course of the trial. 3) Where participants did not recall or understand various elements of the informed consent, participants were likely to create their own interpretations. 4) Factors influencing participations in trials were reimbursement for participation, access to health care, protection of family members, and ability to socialize without fear of COVID-19.

Conclusion: Overall, the findings show that the informed consent process should be regarded as an ongoing process rather than a once-off event that only happens at the start of a clinical trial. An understanding of participants' perspectives, experiences, and motivations for participating in clinical trials, can help trial staff strengthen the consent documents and processes.

Background: As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control. Recent advances in understanding reviewer biases and behaviors along with electronic manuscript handling records have allowed unprecedented investigations into the peer review process.

Methods: We examined a sample of six journals within the field of fisheries science (and all published by the American Fisheries Society) specifically looking for changes in reviewer invitation rates, review time, patterns of reviewer agreements, and rejection rates relative to different forms of blinding.

Results: Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011-2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate-around 20% higher-of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.

Conclusions: Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.

Background: Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master's students write as part of their master's theses.

Methods: Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master's Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template.

Primary outcome: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0-10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language).

Results: Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00).

Conclusions: SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

Background: Equal, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities.

Methods: This study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method.

Results: Quantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination.

Conclusions: In summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.

Background

Conflicts of interest inherent in industry funding can bias medical research methods, outcomes, reporting and clinical applications. This study explored the extent of funding provided to American physician researchers studying surgical mesh used to treat uterine prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, and whether that funding was declared by researchers or influenced the ethical integrity of resulting publications in peer reviewed journals.

Methods

Publications identified via a Pubmed search (2014–2021) of the terms mesh and pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and with at least one US physician author were reviewed. Using the CMS Open Payments database industry funding received by those MDs in the year before, of and after publication was recorded, as were each study’s declarations of funding and 14 quality measures.

Results

Fifty-three of the 56 studies reviewed had at least one American MD author who received industry funding in the year of, or one year before or after publication. For 47 articles this funding was not declared. Of 247 physician authors, 60% received > $100 while 13% received $100,000-$1,000,000 of which approximately 60% was undeclared. While 57% of the studies reviewed explicitly concluded that mesh was safe, only 39% of outcomes supported this. Neither the quality indicator of follow-up duration nor overall statements as to mesh safety varied with declaration status.

Conclusions

Journal editors’ guidelines re declaring conflicts of interest are not being followed. Financial involvement of industry in mesh research is extensive, often undeclared, and may shape the quality of, and conclusions drawn, resulting in overstated benefit and overuse of pelvic mesh in clinical practice.

Background: Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments.

Methods: This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3-35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7-29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3-4), post = 5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3-5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2-5)).

Conclusions: A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.