评估主要骨科期刊的数据共享政策和作者依从性。

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Josh Major, Klaire Wild, Annes Elfar, Brody Dennis, Eli Oldham, Alex Hagood, Eli Paul, Jake X Checketts, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar
{"title":"评估主要骨科期刊的数据共享政策和作者依从性。","authors":"Josh Major, Klaire Wild, Annes Elfar, Brody Dennis, Eli Oldham, Alex Hagood, Eli Paul, Jake X Checketts, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.24.00955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgery is a critical field, impacting global health-care expenditure and patient outcomes. Despite substantial research funding, issues of transparency and reproducibility persist, undermining the credibility of published in-print findings. Data-sharing initiatives aim to address these challenges by promoting accessibility and enhancing research reliability. We aimed to assess the landscape of data-sharing practices within the field of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on the top orthopaedic journals from 2020 to 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Original research articles from 10 of the top orthopaedic journals were screened and analyzed for data-sharing statements (DSSs). Furthermore, we identified variables that were influential on the inclusion of DSSs in orthopaedic clinical studies, and thematically analyzed DSS content to identify prevalent themes. Lastly, corresponding authors were contacted to assess their willingness to share their data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,084 reviewed articles, only 14% included a DSS. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery demonstrated the highest proportion of articles with a DSS. Over time, clinical trials exhibited an increasing trend in DSS adoption, contrasting with consistently low rates among cohort studies. Thematic analysis identified the gatekeeper role and conditional data availability as predominant themes in orthopaedic DSSs. Of the 115 emails sent to corresponding authors, only 22 (19.1%) yielded responses, and of those who responded, only 12 (54.5%) expressed a willingness to share their data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings underscore a substantial disparity in data-sharing practices across orthopaedic journals, highlighting the need for standardization and mandates for DSSs. Adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines can enhance accountability and foster a culture of open science within the field. By addressing these shortcomings, orthopaedic journals can improve research reproducibility and advance scientific knowledge effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":"1024-1033"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Data-Sharing Policies and Author Compliance in Leading Orthopaedic Journals.\",\"authors\":\"Josh Major, Klaire Wild, Annes Elfar, Brody Dennis, Eli Oldham, Alex Hagood, Eli Paul, Jake X Checketts, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.24.00955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthopaedic surgery is a critical field, impacting global health-care expenditure and patient outcomes. Despite substantial research funding, issues of transparency and reproducibility persist, undermining the credibility of published in-print findings. Data-sharing initiatives aim to address these challenges by promoting accessibility and enhancing research reliability. We aimed to assess the landscape of data-sharing practices within the field of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on the top orthopaedic journals from 2020 to 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Original research articles from 10 of the top orthopaedic journals were screened and analyzed for data-sharing statements (DSSs). Furthermore, we identified variables that were influential on the inclusion of DSSs in orthopaedic clinical studies, and thematically analyzed DSS content to identify prevalent themes. Lastly, corresponding authors were contacted to assess their willingness to share their data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,084 reviewed articles, only 14% included a DSS. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery demonstrated the highest proportion of articles with a DSS. Over time, clinical trials exhibited an increasing trend in DSS adoption, contrasting with consistently low rates among cohort studies. Thematic analysis identified the gatekeeper role and conditional data availability as predominant themes in orthopaedic DSSs. Of the 115 emails sent to corresponding authors, only 22 (19.1%) yielded responses, and of those who responded, only 12 (54.5%) expressed a willingness to share their data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings underscore a substantial disparity in data-sharing practices across orthopaedic journals, highlighting the need for standardization and mandates for DSSs. Adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines can enhance accountability and foster a culture of open science within the field. By addressing these shortcomings, orthopaedic journals can improve research reproducibility and advance scientific knowledge effectively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1024-1033\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00955\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00955","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:骨科手术是影响全球卫生保健支出和患者预后的关键领域。尽管有大量的研究经费,但透明度和可重复性的问题仍然存在,这削弱了已发表的印刷研究结果的可信度。数据共享计划旨在通过促进可及性和提高研究可靠性来应对这些挑战。我们旨在评估骨科手术领域数据共享实践的前景,重点关注2020年至2023年的顶级骨科期刊。方法:筛选10种骨科顶级期刊的原创研究文章,进行数据共享声明(DSSs)分析。此外,我们确定了影响在骨科临床研究中纳入DSS的变量,并对DSS内容进行了主题分析,以确定流行主题。最后,联系通讯作者,评估他们是否愿意分享他们的数据。结果:在1084篇综述文章中,只有14%包含DSS。《骨与关节外科杂志》中使用DSS的文章比例最高。随着时间的推移,临床试验显示采用DSS的趋势越来越明显,而队列研究的采用率一直很低。专题分析确定了看门人的角色和有条件的数据可用性是骨科dss的主要主题。在发给通讯作者的115封电子邮件中,只有22封(19.1%)得到了回复,而在回复的人中,只有12封(54.5%)表示愿意分享他们的数据。结论:我们的研究结果强调了骨科期刊之间数据共享实践的巨大差异,强调了dss标准化和授权的必要性。采用《促进透明度和开放性指南》可以加强问责制,并在该领域培养开放科学文化。通过解决这些不足,骨科期刊可以提高研究的可重复性,有效地促进科学知识的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Data-Sharing Policies and Author Compliance in Leading Orthopaedic Journals.

Background: Orthopaedic surgery is a critical field, impacting global health-care expenditure and patient outcomes. Despite substantial research funding, issues of transparency and reproducibility persist, undermining the credibility of published in-print findings. Data-sharing initiatives aim to address these challenges by promoting accessibility and enhancing research reliability. We aimed to assess the landscape of data-sharing practices within the field of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on the top orthopaedic journals from 2020 to 2023.

Methods: Original research articles from 10 of the top orthopaedic journals were screened and analyzed for data-sharing statements (DSSs). Furthermore, we identified variables that were influential on the inclusion of DSSs in orthopaedic clinical studies, and thematically analyzed DSS content to identify prevalent themes. Lastly, corresponding authors were contacted to assess their willingness to share their data.

Results: Of the 1,084 reviewed articles, only 14% included a DSS. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery demonstrated the highest proportion of articles with a DSS. Over time, clinical trials exhibited an increasing trend in DSS adoption, contrasting with consistently low rates among cohort studies. Thematic analysis identified the gatekeeper role and conditional data availability as predominant themes in orthopaedic DSSs. Of the 115 emails sent to corresponding authors, only 22 (19.1%) yielded responses, and of those who responded, only 12 (54.5%) expressed a willingness to share their data.

Conclusions: Our findings underscore a substantial disparity in data-sharing practices across orthopaedic journals, highlighting the need for standardization and mandates for DSSs. Adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines can enhance accountability and foster a culture of open science within the field. By addressing these shortcomings, orthopaedic journals can improve research reproducibility and advance scientific knowledge effectively.

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
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
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