Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.","authors":"Holly K Grossetta Nardini, Janene Batten, Melissa C Funaro, Rolando Garcia-Milian, Kate Nyhan, Judy M Spak, Lei Wang, Janis G Glover","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0083-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-019-0083-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (<i>n</i> = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (<i>n</i> = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (<i>n</i> = 122) would peer review, and 41% (<i>n</i> = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (<i>n</i> = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, <i>n</i> = 20), the most common explanation was \"not enough time\" (60%, <i>n</i> = 12) followed by \"lack of expertise\" (50%, <i>n</i> = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, <i>n</i> = 40) had \"rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the \"search methodology\" (57%, <i>n</i> = 36), \"search write-up\" (46%, <i>n</i> = 29), or \"entire article\" (54%, <i>n</i> = 34). Those who selected \"other\" (37%, <i>n</i> = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2019-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882225/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47777597","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":"Evaluating ethics oversight during assessment of research integrity","authors":"A. Grey, M. Bolland, A. Avenell","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44742513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of research integrity in France is on the rise: the introduction of research integrity officers was a progress","authors":"H. Maisonneuve","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44191987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.","authors":"Blair R Hesp, Katsuhisa Arai, Magdalene Y S Chu, Stefanie Chuah, Jose Miguel B Curameng, Sandeep Kamat, Zhigang Ma, Andrew Sakko, Hazel Fernandez","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0079-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-019-0079-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6774224/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46885268","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":"Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study","authors":"Kerem Keserlioglu, H. Kilicoglu, G. ter Riet","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43442583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.","authors":"Katrina A Bramstedt,&nbsp;Jun Xu","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41222961","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":"Value pluralism in research integrity","authors":"R. Peels, J. de Ridder, T. Haven, L. Bouter","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48031894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical review of the TransCelerate Template for clinical study reports (CSRs) and publication of Version 2 of the CORE Reference (<i>C</i>larity and <i>O</i>penness in <i>R</i>eporting: <i>E</i>3-based) Terminology Table.","authors":"Samina Hamilton,&nbsp;Aaron B Bernstein,&nbsp;Graham Blakey,&nbsp;Vivien Fagan,&nbsp;Tracy Farrow,&nbsp;Debbie Jordan,&nbsp;Walther Seiler,&nbsp;Art Gertel","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0075-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0075-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>CORE (<i>C</i>larity and <i>O</i>penness in <i>R</i>eporting: <i>E</i>3-based) Reference (released May 2016 by the European Medical Writers Association [EMWA] and the American Medical Writers Association [AMWA]) is a complete and authoritative open-access user's guide to support the authoring of clinical study reports (CSRs) for current industry-standard-design interventional studies. CORE Reference is a content guidance resource and is not a CSR Template.TransCelerate Biopharma Inc., an alliance of biopharmaceutical companies, released a CSR Template in November 2018 and recognised CORE Reference as one of two principal sources used in its development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The regulatory medical writing and statistical professionals who developed CORE Reference conducted a critical review of the TransCelerate CSR Template. We summarise our major findings and recommendations in this communication. We also re-examined and edited the Version 1 CORE Reference Terminology Table that we first published in 2016, and we present this as Version 2 in this communication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our major critical review findings indicate that opportunities remain to refine the CSR Template structure and instructional text, enhance content clarity, add web links to referenced guidance documents, improve transparency to support the broad readership of CSRs, and develop supporting resources.The CORE Reference 'Terminology Table' Version 2 includes estimand as a defined term and an adaptation of the original 'worked study example' to incorporate the recently evolved concept of 'estimands'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As TransCelerate's CSR Template represents an important milestone in authoring CSRs, we offer CSR authors advice and recommendations on its use, similarities, and differences with CORE Reference and advise them to consider shared interpretations between the two.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>CORE Reference is registered with the EQUATOR Network. The TransCelerate CSR Template is not registered with any external organisation to the knowledge of the authors of this paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0075-5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41222962","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":"Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview.","authors":"Sharain Suliman, Leigh van den Heuvel, Alexandra Suryapranata, Jonathan I Bisson, Soraya Seedat","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0074-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-019-0074-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although a large number of clinical trials on interventions demonstrating efficacy (or lack thereof) are conducted annually, much of this evidence is not accessible to scientists and clinicians.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to determine the publication rate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) trials that have been registered in clinical trial registries, and the factors associated with publication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Trials, completed on January 15, 2015, were identified via the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry, the European Union Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. A systematic search for publications (published by the end of March 2018) related to each of the registered trials were then performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred and thirty-eight of 1982 potentially eligible trials were included. Only 34% of interventional trials were registered prior to initiation, 9% were registered within 2 months of starting and 20% after trial completion. Of the 438 included trials, 72% had generated peer-reviewed publications, while an additional 7% had disseminated results in some other form (such as on the trial database), 26 months after trial completion. Randomisation of a trial was the only factor individually associated with publication, in logistic regression analysis (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Intervention type, university as sponsor and study registration prior to completion were factors that influenced the time to publication, using Cox regression (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the importance of timely and accurate publication and dissemination of trial results, in order to avoid the potential waste of resources and to ensure research integrity and patient safety. We suggest that authors and journal editors adhere to conditions set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and that more diligent data sharing is encouraged through prospective trial registration and trial reporting websites.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659272/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41222963","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":"Correction to: ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity.","authors":"Lex M Bouter,&nbsp;Joeri Tijdink,&nbsp;Nils Axelsen,&nbsp;Brian C Martinson,&nbsp;Gerben Ter Riet","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0072-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0072-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5.].</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0072-8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37410705","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}