研究诚信研究的预先登记步骤。

Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H M Emons, Nicholas H Steneck, Lex M Bouter
{"title":"研究诚信研究的预先登记步骤。","authors":"Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H M Emons, Nicholas H Steneck, Lex M Bouter","doi":"10.1186/s41073-021-00108-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) reported on preregistered research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Conference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is limited to a basic description of results and some recommendations that should be considered when taking further steps to improve preregistration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>19% of the 308 presenters preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half provided information on the six key elements of the Amsterdam Agenda. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Some presenters at the WCRI have preregistered their research on research integrity, but further steps are needed to increase frequency and completeness of preregistration. One approach to increase preregistration would be to make it a requirement for research presented at the World Conferences on Research Integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"6 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Steps toward preregistration of research on research integrity.\",\"authors\":\"Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H M Emons, Nicholas H Steneck, Lex M Bouter\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-021-00108-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) reported on preregistered research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Conference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is limited to a basic description of results and some recommendations that should be considered when taking further steps to improve preregistration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>19% of the 308 presenters preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half provided information on the six key elements of the Amsterdam Agenda. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Some presenters at the WCRI have preregistered their research on research integrity, but further steps are needed to increase frequency and completeness of preregistration. One approach to increase preregistration would be to make it a requirement for research presented at the World Conferences on Research Integrity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923522/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00108-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00108-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:第五届世界科研诚信大会(阿姆斯特丹,2017 年)制定并通过了一项鼓励对科研诚信研究进行预先登记的提案,并将其作为《阿姆斯特丹议程》。本文报告了第六届世界科研诚信大会(香港,2019年)的摘要在多大程度上报告了预先注册的研究:研究小组获得了在第六届世界科研诚信大会上提交论文或海报的与会者的大会注册数据。由于数据集太小,无法进行推理统计,因此本报告仅限于对结果的基本描述,以及在采取进一步措施改进预登记时应考虑的一些建议:在 308 位发言人中,有 19% 的人对其研究进行了预先登记。在 56 个可用的案例中,不到一半提供了有关《阿姆斯特丹议程》六个关键要素的信息。还有一些人提供的信息使他们的数据失效,比如一个信息不全的 URL。定性研究和定量研究之间没有明显的区别:世界研究与创新会议上的一些发言人已经预先登记了他们关于研究诚信的研究,但还需要采取进一步措施,提高预先登记的频率和完整性。增加预登记的一种方法是将其作为在世界研究诚信大会上展示研究成果的一项要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Steps toward preregistration of research on research integrity.

Background: A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) reported on preregistered research.

Methods: Conference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is limited to a basic description of results and some recommendations that should be considered when taking further steps to improve preregistration.

Results: 19% of the 308 presenters preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half provided information on the six key elements of the Amsterdam Agenda. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research.

Conclusions: Some presenters at the WCRI have preregistered their research on research integrity, but further steps are needed to increase frequency and completeness of preregistration. One approach to increase preregistration would be to make it a requirement for research presented at the World Conferences on Research Integrity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1