Research integrity and peer review最新文献

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.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Background: Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers. We sought to determine if and how librarians' comments differed from subject peer-reviewers'; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making; and the perceived utility of librarian peer-review by librarians and authors.

Methods: We used a mixed method approach, conducting a qualitative analysis of reviewer reports, author replies and editors' decisions of submissions to the International Journal of Health Governance. Our content analysis categorized 16 thematic areas, so that methodological and subject peer-reviewers' comments, decisions and rejection rates could be compared. Categories were based on the standard areas covered in peer-review (e.g., title, originality, etc.) as well as additional in-depth categories relating to the methodology (e.g., search strategy, reporting guidelines, etc.). We developed and used criteria to judge reviewers' perspectives and code their comments. We conducted two online multiple-choice surveys which were qualitatively analyzed: one of methodological peer-reviewers' perceptions of peer-reviewing, the other of published authors' views on the suggested revisions.

Results: Methodological peer-reviewers assessed 13 literature reviews submitted between September 2020 and March 2023. 55 reviewer reports were collected: 25 from methodological peer-reviewers, 30 from subject peer-reviewers (mean: 4.2 reviews per manuscript). Methodological peer-reviewers made more comments on methodologies, with authors more likely to implement their changes (52 of 65 changes, vs. 51 of 82 by subject peer-reviewers); they were also more likely to reject submissions (seven vs. four times, respectively). Where there were differences in recommendations to editors, journal editors were more likely to follow methodological peer-reviewers (nine vs. three times, respectively). The survey of published authors (87.5% response rate) revealed four of seven found comments on methodologies helpful. Librarians' survey responses (66.5% response rate) revealed those who conducted peer-reviews felt they improved quality of publications.

Conclusions: Librarians can enhance evidence synthesis publications by ensuring methodologies have been conducted and reported appropriately. Their recommendations helped authors revise submissions and facilitated editorial decision-making. Further research could determine if sharing reviews with subject peer-reviewers and journal editors could benefit them in better understanding of evidence synthesis methodologies.

Background: Studies on academic integrity reveal high rates of plagiarism and cheating among students. We have developed an online teaching tool, Integrity Games ( https://integgame.eu/ ), that uses serious games to teach academic integrity. In this paper, we test the impact of a soft intervention - a short quiz - that was added to the Integrity Games website to increase users' interest in learning about integrity. Based on general principles of behavioral science, our quiz highlighted the intricacy of integrity issues, generated social comparisons, and produced personalized advice. We expected that these interventions would create a need for knowledge and encourage participants to spend more time on the website.

Methods: In a randomized controlled trial involving N = 405 students from Switzerland and France, half of the users had to take a short quiz before playing the serious games, while the other half could directly play the games. We measured how much time they spent playing the games, and, in a post-experimental survey, we measured their desire to learn about integrity issues and their understanding of integrity issues.

Results: Contrary to our expectations, the quiz had a negative impact on time spent playing the serious games. Moreover, the quiz did not increase participants' desire to learn about integrity issues or their overall understanding of the topic.

Conclusions: Our quiz did not have any measurable impact on curiosity or understanding of integrity issues, and may have had a negative impact on time spent on the Integrity games website. Our results highlight the difficulty of implementing behavioral insights in a real-world setting.

Trial registration: The study was preregistered at https://osf.io/73xty .