Investigation of Research Quality and Transparency in Neurosurgery Through the Utilization of Open Science Practices

Zahin Alam, Kush Desai, Anirudh Maddali, Vijay Sivan, Rohit PremKumar, Geoffrey O'Malley, NItesh Patel
{"title":"Investigation of Research Quality and Transparency in Neurosurgery Through the Utilization of Open Science Practices","authors":"Zahin Alam, Kush Desai, Anirudh Maddali, Vijay Sivan, Rohit PremKumar, Geoffrey O'Malley, NItesh Patel","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.03.24311452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objective: Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices. Methods: Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements. Results: One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Figure 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < .05) and World Neurosurgery (p < .05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < .001) and systematic reviews (p < .001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies. Conclusions: Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing transparency and research quality in neurosurgery. Keywords: Neurosurgical journals, open science practices, research quality, research transparency, research reproducibility","PeriodicalId":501051,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.03.24311452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objective: Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices. Methods: Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements. Results: One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Figure 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < .05) and World Neurosurgery (p < .05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < .001) and systematic reviews (p < .001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies. Conclusions: Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing transparency and research quality in neurosurgery. Keywords: Neurosurgical journals, open science practices, research quality, research transparency, research reproducibility
通过利用开放科学实践调查神经外科的研究质量和透明度
背景和目的:神经外科研究是一个快速发展的领域,不断有大量研究成果发表。随着研究主体的增加,坚持高质量标准变得越来越重要。开放科学实践提供了确保质量和透明度的工具。然而,这些实践的普及程度仍不清楚。本研究调查了神经外科出版物实施开放科学实践的程度。方法:根据谷歌学术(Google Scholar)对五种顶级神经外科期刊(《神经外科》、《神经外科杂志》、《世界神经外科》、《神经外科评论》和《神经外科学报》)的五种开放科学实践(预印本、赤道指南、发表同行评审意见、预注册以及数据和方法的开放性)进行了测量。随机抽取了 2022 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日期间的 150 篇文章。两名审稿人分析了这些文章对开放科学实践的利用情况。第三位审稿人负责解决分歧。结果:一份期刊(20%)要求使用 EQUATOR 指南,三份期刊(60%)建议使用 EQUATOR 指南。三份期刊(60%)允许预印本,所有五份期刊(100%)都建议或要求临床试验进行预注册,但只有两份期刊(40%)建议系统综述进行预注册(图1)。所有五种期刊(100%)都建议或要求公开研究方法,但没有一种期刊(0%)发表同行评议意见。神经外科评论》采用的开放科学实践最多,平均每篇出版物采用1.4种开放科学实践,而其他四种期刊为0.9种(p <0.001)。此外,与《神经外科杂志》(Journal of Neurosurgery)(p <.05)和《世界神经外科》(World Neurosurgery)(p <.05)相比,《神经外科评论》明显采用了更多的开放科学实践。与观察性研究相比,随机对照试验(p <.001)和系统综述(p <.001)都明显采用了更多的开放科学实践。结论:尽管神经外科期刊进行了宣传,但开放科学实践的采用仍需改进。实施激励措施和提出更明确的要求可能会有所裨益。推广这些实践对提高神经外科的透明度和研究质量至关重要。关键词神经外科期刊;开放科学实践;研究质量;研究透明度;研究可重复性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信