Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS
Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh, Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi
{"title":"Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.","authors":"Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh, Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity, as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint. Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable. These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings. The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review, ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13072526/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","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

Abstract

Introduction: This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings.

Methods: Using a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles.

Results: The findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity, as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint. Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable. These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings. The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review, ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity.

迷失在文件中:专业规范与调查翻译透明度的差距。
本研究系统地调查了伊朗研究人员进行的验证研究中调查翻译中的文件差距,将这些差距视为一个关键但被忽视的研究完整性问题。透明的报告不仅是方法严谨性的基础,也是实现有意义的同行评审和对跨文化发现的信任的基础。方法:使用一个综合框架,跨三个阶段(输入、翻译过程和输出)评估文档,我们分析了报告的翻译过程的完整性。我们进一步根据既定的翻译专业标准对这些做法进行了评估,具体而言,是与核心研究诚信原则相一致的问责制、沟通和忠诚规范。结果:研究结果揭示了一种明显的系统性失衡:虽然翻译过程本身经常被记录下来,但准备(输入)和结果(输出)阶段在很大程度上被忽视了。这种选择性报告构成了严重的透明度缺陷,模糊了翻译有效性的基本信息,严重损害了同行评审的核心方法审查。讨论与结论:结果直接告知干预措施,以加强研究的完整性,因为忽视彻底的文档会给同行审稿人造成不可弥补的信息差距。这妨碍了对翻译有效性的正确评估——这是一个核心的方法论检查点。因此,建议的优先事项(例如,输入摘要和输出决定的强制性报告模板)是有针对性的干预措施,以使翻译过程可审计。这些差距系统性地排除了译者智力劳动和文化调解的证据,侵蚀了复制或信任跨文化发现所必需的透明度。伊朗的一贯模式反映了LMIC(低收入和中等收入国家)的挑战,证实了标准化文件是公平同行评议的先决条件,确保跨文化研究的方法基础,特别是翻译有效性,是可审计的,并受到有效的同行评议——这是研究诚信的核心保障。
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
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书