当前位置: X-MOL 学术Research Integrity and Peer Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus)
Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-06-12 , DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3
Kaitlyn Hair 1 , Malcolm R Macleod 1 , Emily S Sena 1 ,
Affiliation  

BackgroundThe ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.MethodsIn a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March–June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.ResultsWe randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: n = 844, intervention: n = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: n = 340; intervention: n = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (X2 = 34.0, df = 1, p = 2.1 × 10−7) in the control and intervention groups, respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.

中文翻译:

一项旨在提高 ARRIVE 指南依从性的干预措施的随机对照试验 (IICARus)

背景 ARRIVE(动物研究:体内实验报告)指南得到广泛认可,但合规性有限。我们试图确定期刊要求完成的 ARRIVE 检查表是否提高了对指南的完全遵从性。 ARRIVE 清单或当前的标准做法。作者、学术编辑和同行评审员对分组分配视而不见。训练有素的审稿人通过根据包含 108 个项目的 ARRIVE 指南的可操作版本评估手稿,一式两份地进行结果裁定。我们的主要结果是满足所有 ARRIVE 指南检查表子项目的稿件比例的组间差异。结果我们随机分配了 1689 份稿件(对照:n = 844,干预:n = 845),其中 1269 份送交同行评审,762 份(对照:n = 340;干预:n = 332)接受发表。两组中的任何手稿都没有完全符合 ARRIVE 检查表。畜牧业的细节(ARRIVE 子项 9b)是唯一显示报告改进的子项,合规稿件的比例从 52.1% 上升到 74.1%(X2 = 34.0,df = 1,p = 2.1 × 10−7)分别为对照组和干预组。结论这些结果表明,改变编辑过程以包括对完整的 ARRIVE 清单的请求不足以提高对 ARRIVE 指南的遵从性。其他方法,例如更严格的编辑政策或针对关键质量项目的有针对性的方法,可能会促进报告的改进。
更新日期:2019-06-12
down
wechat
bug