Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and factors associated with complete reporting: a meta-research study.","authors":"Corentin Chapron, Lina Ghosn, Carolina Riveros, Gabriel Baron, Isabelle Boutron","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00196-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00196-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CONSORT statement for reporting abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides a list of essential items to report to ensure reliable interpretation. We evaluated the completeness of reporting of RCT abstracts published in high-impact-factor journals and examined factors associated with adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>On March 5, 2024, we searched PubMed for abstracts of RCTs published in the top five journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2023) in 22 medical fields, including Medicine, General & Internal, from July 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024. We assessed the completeness of reporting of the 15 items of the CONSORT for abstracts in duplicate via a standardized data extraction form. The primary outcome was the mean number of items adequately reported. The prespecified factors potentially associated with adherence to CONSORT for abstracts included study-specific factors (income category of the country, funding type, and sample size) and journal-specific factors (type of journal [specialized vs. general medicine], CONSORT endorsement, abstract word count limit, and structured abstract).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1267 citations, 610 abstracts published in 82 distinct journals were included. The mean (SD) number of items adequately reported was 10.1 (2.5). Among the 610 abstracts included, the quality of reporting varied across items; some items were adequately reported (97% (n=594) for participants, 100% (n=610) for interventions, 96% (n=585) for objectives) and others were poorly reported (29% (n=175) for trial design, 36% (n=221) for funding sources, 32% (n=197) for blinding and 13% (n=81) for randomization). The multivariate linear-mixed effects model showed that a sample size above 100, the CONSORT endorsement and Medicine, General & Internal journals were associated with a higher mean number of items adequately reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reporting of RCT abstracts remains incomplete particularly for key items including trial design, random sequence generation, blinding, and funding source disclosure. CONSORT endorsement, publication in a general medical journal and larger sample size were associated with better adherence to CONSORT for abstracts.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13045057/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147596700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?","authors":"Shuchen Tang, Zilong Li","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00187-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-025-00187-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of AI in academic publishing has raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the practice of prompt injection, where hidden instructions are embedded in manuscripts to manipulate AI responses in the peer review process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining a comprehensive content analysis of academic integrity guidelines with a survey of 194 stakeholders, including authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors from various academic fields. The survey focused on their awareness of prompt injection, perceptions of its ethical implications, and views on AI transparency in peer review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings reveal that a substantial proportion of participants (80%) support greater transparency in the use of AI in peer review. Many respondents reported frustrations with the inconsistencies and inefficacies of AI-generated feedback, prompting some to consider the use of prompt injection as a strategy to secure favorable review outcomes. Importantly, the analysis identified a significant gap in current definitions of research misconduct, which do not adequately address the ethical implications of AI interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the urgent need for revised ethical frameworks that incorporate AI-related issues in academic publishing, advocating for policies that promote transparency and uphold the integrity of the peer review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13007373/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147500878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Symbolic scarcity and epistemic waste: a systems theory of academic publishing failure.","authors":"Trym Hansen","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00193-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00193-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary academic publishing increasingly operates under conditions of symbolic scarcity, shaped by rising submission volumes, constrained reviewer capacity, and evaluative incentives that privilege novelty, visibility, and perceived impact. While these dynamics vary across disciplines, their cumulative effect is a publication system that systematically favors novel and attention-generating contributions over replication, confirmation, and cumulative refinement. As a result, methodologically sound research that tests, stabilizes, or contextualizes existing findings is more likely to be delayed, displaced, or rendered invisible, contributing to persistent non-replication and long-term fragility of the scientific record.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper develops a systems-theoretic analysis of academic publishing, examining how prestige filtration, redundancy in peer review, and novelty-oriented selection interact with institutional incentive structures. Rather than attributing dysfunction to individual actors or emerging technologies, the analysis focuses on how current publication architectures shape evaluative behavior, reviewer labor allocation, and the composition of the visible scientific record.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis identifies three interlocking failure modes: (1) a structural decoupling between epistemic contribution and publication outcomes driven by novelty-oriented symbolic selection; (2) systematic waste of reviewer labor due to non-transferable and repetitive evaluation processes; and (3) declining scalability of existing review infrastructures as generative AI lowers the cost of manuscript production while increasing evaluative load. Together, these dynamics suppress replication and cumulative verification, distort the visible scientific record, and misdirect expert attention away from epistemically stabilizing review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To address these failures, the paper proposes a two-tiered publishing architecture that separates epistemic inclusion from symbolic curation, alongside a complementary tiered review model that aligns review intensity with epistemic risk. An optional framework for reviewer recognition is also outlined to support sustained evaluative engagement without undermining anonymity. These proposals are offered as conceptual system designs rather than prescriptive reforms, intended to clarify how current publishing architectures generate epistemic waste and to suggest structurally feasible pathways toward a more coherent, inclusive, and resilient scholarly communication system.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12980890/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147438210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reporting quality of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods in scientific publications.","authors":"Natascha Drude, Camila Baselly, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Jan-Niklas May, Lena Tienken, Parya Abbasi, Tracey Weissgerber, Steven Burgess","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00188-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00188-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reproducibility remains a major concern in scientific research, particularly in complex methods such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Stringent reporting standards are essential to ensure reproducibility, validity of data, and trustworthiness of conclusions. The MIQE (Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments) guidelines, introduced in 2009, aimed to improve reporting practices. However, a 2013 study highlighted persistent deficiencies. To further assess the transparency and completeness of qPCR reporting, we conducted a systematic evaluation of recently published research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed research articles employing qPCR that were published in the top 20 journals in genetics and heredity (n = 186) and plant sciences (n = 246). Articles were assessed for completeness of methodological reporting with respect to RNA quality control, reference gene reporting, and details of RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR procedures. Frequencies of reporting deficiencies were recorded and descriptively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis identified frequent omissions and insufficient detail in reporting key information required to evaluate and replicate qPCR experiments. RNA integrity was reported in only 7-10% of studies, and assessment methods or instruments used for integrity evaluation were specified in just 14-16%. While primer sequences were often disclosed (88-93%), the traceability of housekeeping/reference genes was limited: accession numbers were provided in only 11% of genetics/heredity papers and 32% of plant science papers. Critical methodological details-including kit names, catalog numbers, and reagent specifications for RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR-were also frequently missing, appearing in only 7-14% of reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the urgent need for improved reporting practices in qPCR experiments. Greater emphasis should be placed on quality controls, detailed descriptions of reagents and materials, and increased analytical transparency. Addressing these deficiencies is vital to enhance reproducibility and to strengthen the trustworthiness of qPCR-based research. Potential solutions include encouraging the citation of protocols in online repositories, providing structured reporting templates, and developing automated tools to support compliance with MIQE standards.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable (not a clinical trial). The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9ZP5M .</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12961777/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147357930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards.","authors":"Harald H Sitte, Jutta Hübner, Norbert Aust, Viktor Weisshäupl, Edzard Ernst","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00191-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00191-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientific misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy significantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, doubts about the trial's validity quickly emerged. Concerns were first published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientific misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the affiliation of the study's lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an 'Expression of Concern' at the time, despite five co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship- a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was \"under review,\" with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specific concerns raised about the study's results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself.Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as \"proof\" that homeopathy benefits cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientific fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientific record and prevent harm to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12908276/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146204085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.","authors":"John P A Ioannidis, Jeroen Baas","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Democracy and freedom of press may affect how science is prioritized, produced, communicated and disseminated. We aimed to map the production of scientific publications worldwide in terms of democracy and freedom of press ratings of countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a bibliometric study cross-linking global bibliometric data with democracy ratings and freedom of the press indices for countries around the world. Democracy ratings used the Democracy Index in 2024 and in 2006 (when first released by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and Freedom of Press ratings used the 2024 index by Reports Without Borders. The Scopus database was used for publications from each country. Fractional counts were assigned for publications co-authored by authors from different countries. Full articles, reviews, conference papers, books and book chapters were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% (915,102/4,185,853) of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% (1,157,842/1,757,310) in 2006. There was no correlation between the ratio of publications indexed in 2024 versus 2006 and the absolute or relative change in Democracy Index between 2006 and 2024 (r = 0.02 and r = 0.00, respectively). 78% of publications in 2024 (3,255,770/4,187,136) came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) rating for freedom of press. Proportions of publications originating from countries with problematic or worse situations were 81% (n = 3,374,348), 91% (n = 3,820,811), 61% (n = 2,537,962), 62% (n = 2,608,802), and 63% (n = 2,650,819) for political, economic, legislative, sociocultural, and safety/security dimensions, respectively. Results were similar when limited to articles published in 2024 in journals with continuous annual presence in Scopus during 2006-2024. 87.1% (1,489/1,710) of the highly cited papers published in 2024 (with 150 or more Scopus citations by November 23, 2025) have at least one author from a country that is not full democracy and 98.8% (1,690/1,710) of these highly cited papers have at least one author from a country that does not have good freedom of press.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most published science originates from countries struggling or suffering in democracy and/or freedom of press. The deeper causes and implications of this emerging landscape require further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12874684/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146121309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of preprints and their corresponding peer-reviewed publications in the health field: a scoping review.","authors":"Mohamad Sadek Zoghbi, Amr Ali, Lama Hamade, Sasha Tedy, Ola El Zein, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A Akl","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00189-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00189-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preprints are becoming more common in the health sciences and allow for instant dissemination of research findings; however, with the risk of compromising quality and transparency. Peer review potentially improves reporting and reduces errors, although its actual impact is not known. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize evidence comparing preprints in the health areas to their peer-reviewed versions and assess preprint publication rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Medline OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to July 2024 for studies comparing preprints with their peer-reviewed versions and/or investigating preprint publication rates. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and extracted data on study characteristics, parameters compared, and preprint publication rates. We conducted a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 40 studies (published 2019-2024; 92% peer-reviewed). The median number of studies analyzed per article was 356 (range: 19-73,256). 42% of preprints were eventually published among 33 studies that reported publication rates (IQR: 22%-67%). Preprint searches routinely started on January 1, 2020, with a median of 24.3 months and a median difference of 11.5 months between preprint and peer-reviewed search end dates. Commonly compared parameters were primary outcomes/endpoints (37%) and sample size (30%), with peer-reviewed articles showing improved reporting for funding (13%), conflicts of interest (13%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While peer review enhances transparency and methodological reporting (e.g., funding, conflicts of interest), the content, outcomes, and conclusions of health-related preprints remain largely consistent with their peer-reviewed versions. Preprints facilitate rapid knowledge dissemination but may benefit from stricter reporting standards to improve credibility. Future efforts should focus on standardizing preprint policies to bridge quality gaps without delaying access.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12829155/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146031998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gender reporting across regions and time in psychological studies: a scoping review of studies in psychological Science between 2019 and 2024.","authors":"Tiantian Chen","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00186-8","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-025-00186-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite growing calls for gender-responsive psychological research, implementation of gender-related guidelines is underresearched. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines recommend reporting participants' gender, presenting gender-stratified results, analyzing gender-related data, acknowledging non-binary identities, and distinguishing between biological sex and social gender. This scoping review assessed the extent to which these guidelines are followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included all primary data studies on human participants published in Psychological Science from 2019 to 2024 (n = 699) and assessed their gender reporting practices according to the SAGER guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While 87.8% (n = 614) of studies reported participants' gender, only 35.3% (n = 247) presented gender-stratified results, and 24.2% (n = 169) conducted gender-based analysis. Only 17.2% (n = 120) of studies reported participants' non-binary identities. Regional patterns emerged: Global North studies more frequently reported non-binary identities but less often presented gender-stratified results and conducted gender-based analysis than Global South studies. The U.S.-based studies saw a notable decline in reporting gender-stratified results, from 43.2% (n = 32) in 2022 to 28.1% (n = 16) in 2024.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review reveals persistent inconsistencies in how gender is conceptualized and reported. It provides recommendations to improve gender reporting in order to facilitate the production of more accurate and socially relevant knowledge in psychological research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12817501/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146004804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reverse spin bias: preliminary observations of reporting bias in medical systematic reviews.","authors":"Renée O'Leary, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Riccardo Polosa","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00185-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-025-00185-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While conducting an umbrella review of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we observed that in many instances, systematic review authors reported findings favorable to the treatment, yet they declined to recommend it or recommended against it despite the evidence of its effectiveness in their own systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Existing literature: </strong>We searched the literature for a term or category to describe this form of reporting bias where the authors' recommendations dismiss their findings of treatment benefit. Ideally the term spin bias should apply to any conclusion or recommendation not supported by the findings of the study, but in practice spin bias is almost exclusively applied to the narrative attribution of significance or causation to statistically non-significant data or findings.</p><p><strong>Issue under discussion: </strong>After observing that many systematic review authors dismissed their findings of effectiveness for e-cigarettes for cessation, we wondered if this form of reporting bias also occurs in the systematic reviews on other controversial treatments. We made a rapid search for recent systematic reviews on medical cannabis for pain, another controversial treatment. Here also we observed that many authors did not recommend cannabis for pain management even though their findings clearly showed treatment benefit. We tentatively offer the term reverse spin bias for the narrative discounting or dismissal of statistically significant findings. We catalogued the narrative turns that enabled reverse spin bias in 20 systematic reviews of e-cigarettes for cessation and medical cannabis for pain. We identified five mechanisms: discount the evidence base, discredit the primary studies, appeal to fear, dismiss the treatment modality a priori, and omit findings. We speculate that authors introduce reverse spin bias to improve their chances for publication or to support their position about a treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standard task for editors and peer reviewers is confirming that treatment recommendations are supported by the review's data, yet our examples strongly suggest that this examination for reporting bias is frequently skipped. By proposing a new term, reverse spin bias, we hope to bring stronger scrutiny to bear on these instances of reporting bias that are detrimental to evidence-informed clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12784479/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145936661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study.","authors":"Marieke S Jansen, Rolf H H Groenwold, Olaf M Dekkers","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00184-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-025-00184-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sample size calculations are critical in clinical trial design, yet hypothesised effect sizes are often overly optimistic, leading to underpowered studies. Research ethics committees (RECs) assess trial protocols, including sample size justification, but their role in mitigating optimism bias in sample size calculations is not well studied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We descriptively analysed 50 clinical trial protocols approved by a Dutch REC (2015-2018) with available primary outcome results. We examined REC comments on sample size calculations, protocol modifications during ethics review and amendments, and discrepancies between target and observed effect sizes. For comparability, effect sizes were standardised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine (18%) trials received REC comments on sample size calculations, mainly addressing calculation errors (n = 5), missing parameters (n = 2), or other methodological considerations (n = 3), with only three comments (6%) requesting effect size justification. Seven (14%) trials modified their sample size calculation during ethics review, mostly in response to REC comments, and 10 (20%) trials made modifications in amendments. In total, 40 (80%) trials overestimated their target effect size. Across all trials, the target effect size was overestimated by a median of 0.22 [IQR: 0.03 - 0.41]. Changes during ethics review led to less overestimation for only one trial, which reflected the correction of a calculation error rather than a reassessment of assumptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Optimism in sample size calculations is common, but the influence of REC feedback on reducing overestimation appears limited. As this was a small, descriptive study from a single Dutch REC in 2015-2018, findings may not generalise to other settings or more recent practice. Future research should validate these findings and may help identify characteristics associated with overestimation, supporting RECs in recognising trials at risk of being underpowered.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12699925/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145745991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}