Research integrity and peer review最新文献

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 .

Background: There is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from single-blind to double-blind peer review affected 1) the willingness of experts to review, 2) their publication recommendations, and 3) the quality of review reports.

Methods: The Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review in September 2017. The proportion of review invitations that resulted in a received review report was counted. The reviewers' recommendations of "accept as is", "minor revision", "major revision" or "reject" were explored. The content of the reviews was assessed by two experienced reviewers using the Review Quality Instrument modified to apply to both original research and review manuscripts. The study material comprised reviews submitted from September 2017 to February 2018. The controls were the reviews submitted between September 2015 and February 2016 and between September 2016 and February 2017. The reviewers' recommendations and the scorings of quality assessments were tested with the Chi square test, and the means of quality assessments with the independent-samples t test.

Results: A total of 118 double-blind first-round reviews of 59 manuscripts were compared with 232 single-blind first-round reviews of 116 manuscripts. The proportion of successful review invitations when reviewing single-blinded was 67%, and when reviewing double-blinded, 66%. When reviewing double-blinded, the reviewers recommended accept as is or minor revision less often than during the control period (59% vs. 73%), and major revision or rejection more often (41% vs 27%, P = 0.010). For the quality assessment, 116 reviews from the double-blind period were compared with 104 reviews conducted between September 2016 and February 2017. On a 1-5 scale (1 poor, 5 excellent), double-blind reviews received higher overall proportion of ratings of 4 and 5 than single-blind reviews (56% vs. 49%, P < 0.001). Means for the overall quality of double-blind reviews were 3.38 (IQR, 3.33-3.44) vs. 3.22 (3.17-3.28; P < 0.001) for single-blind reviews.

Conclusions: The quality of the reviews conducted double-blind was better than of those conducted single-blind. Switching to double-blind review did not alter the reviewers' willingness to review. The reviewers became slightly more critical.

Background: Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012-2022) on their quality of life.

Methods: An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.

Results: We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.

Conclusions: In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias.

Background: Scientific productivity is often evaluated by means of cumulative citation metrics. Different metrics produce different incentives. The H-index assigns full credit from a citation to each coauthor, and thus may encourage multiple collaborations in mid-list author roles. In contrast, the Hm-index assigns only a fraction 1/k of citation credit to each of k coauthors of an article, and thus may encourage research done by smaller teams, and in first or last author roles. Whether H and Hm indices are influenced by different authorship patterns has not been examined.

Methods: Using a publicly available Scopus database, I examined associations between the numbers of research articles published as single, first, mid-list, or last author between 1990 and 2019, and the H-index and the Hm-index, among 18,231 leading researchers in the health sciences.

Results: Adjusting for career duration and other article types, the H-index was negatively associated with the number of single author articles (partial Pearson r -0.06) and first author articles (-0.08), but positively associated with the number of mid-list (0.64) and last author articles (0.21). In contrast, all associations were positive for the Hm-index (0.04 for single author articles, 0.18 for first author articles, 0.24 for mid-list articles, and 0.46 for last author articles).

Conclusion: The H-index and the Hm-index do not reflect the same authorship patterns: the full-credit H-index is predominantly associated with mid-list authorship, whereas the partial-credit Hm-index is driven by more balanced publication patterns, and is most strongly associated with last-author articles. Since performance metrics may act as incentives, the selection of a citation metric should receive careful consideration.