-
A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2024-03-08 Ariel Maia Lyons-Warren, Whitley W. Aamodt, Kathleen M. Pieper, Roy E. Strowd
-
A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2024-02-16 Priya Silverstein, Colin Elman, Amanda Montoya, Barbara McGillivray, Charlotte R. Pennington, Chase H. Harrison, Crystal N. Steltenpohl, Jan Philipp Röer, Katherine S. Corker, Lisa M. Charron, Mahmoud Elsherif, Mario Malicki, Rachel Hayes-Harb, Sandra Grinschgl, Tess Neal, Thomas Rhys Evans, Veli-Matti Karhulahti, William L. D. Krenzer, Anabel Belaus, David Moreau, Debora I. Burin, Elizabeth Chin,
-
Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2024-01-19 Irina Ibragimova, Helen Fulbright
Background Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers. We sought to determine if and how librarians’ comments differed from subject peer-reviewers’; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making; and the perceived utility of librarian
-
The quizzical failure of a nudge on academic integrity education: a randomized controlled trial Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-11-30 Aurélien Allard, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Mads Paludan Goddiksen, Mikkel Willum Johansen, Hillar Loor, Céline Schöpfer, Orsolya Varga, Christine Clavien
Studies on academic integrity reveal high rates of plagiarism and cheating among students. We have developed an online teaching tool, Integrity Games ( https://integgame.eu/ ), that uses serious games to teach academic integrity. In this paper, we test the impact of a soft intervention – a short quiz – that was added to the Integrity Games website to increase users’ interest in learning about integrity
-
Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-10-24 Piitu Parmanne, Joonas Laajava, Noora Järvinen, Terttu Harju, Mauri Marttunen, Pertti Saloheimo
-
Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-09-21 Anna Nuechterlein, Tanya Barretto, Alaa Yehia, Judy Illes
-
Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-09-05 Thomas Perneger
-
Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-08-23 Sherif Ahmed Kamel, Tamer A. El-Sobky
-
Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals – a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-08-03 Fabrice Frank, Nans Florens, Gideon Meyerowitz-katz, Jérôme Barriere, Éric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, Lonni Besançon
-
A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-07-24 Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Pearce, Carole J. Lee, Elena A. Erosheva
-
Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-07-12 Edwin Were, Jepchirchir Kiplagat, Eunice Kaguiri, Rose Ayikukwei, Violet Naanyu
Background Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity
-
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-06-20 Ben W. Mol, Shimona Lai, Ayesha Rahim, Esmée M. Bordewijk, Rui Wang, Rik van Eekelen, Lyle C. Gurrin, Jim G. Thornton, Madelon van Wely, Wentao Li
To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved
-
Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-06-06 Yi Kai Ong, Kay L Double, Lisa Bero, Joanna Diong
-
Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-05-18 Mohammad Hosseini, Serge P. J. M. Horbach
Background The emergence of systems based on large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT has created a range of discussions in scholarly circles. Since LLMs generate grammatically correct and mostly relevant (yet sometimes outright wrong, irrelevant or biased) outputs in response to provided prompts, using them in various writing tasks including writing peer review reports could result in
-
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-05-03 Karen B. Schmaling, Stephen A. Gallo
-
Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-04-24 Allana G. LeBlanc, Joel D. Barnes, Travis J. Saunders, Mark S. Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput
Background There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball
-
Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford’s Law Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2023-04-11 Gregory M. Eckhartt, Graeme D. Ruxton
-
Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-09-19 Schneider, Jodi, Woods, Nathan D., Proescholdt, Randi
Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as “removed” from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public
-
Correction: Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-07-13 Rice, Danielle B., Pham, Ba’, Presseau, Justin, Tricco, Andrea C., Moher, David
Correction to: Res Integr Peer Rev 7, 1 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1 Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the ‘Results’, both in the Abstract and in the main text: it incorrectly stated that ‘a greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male)’, instead of 74% vs 58% as listed
-
Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-07-04 Omar Dewidar, Nour Elmestekawy, Vivian Welch
-
ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-06-07 William T. Gattrell, Amrit Pali Hungin, Amy Price, Christopher C. Winchester, David Tovey, Ellen L. Hughes, Esther J. van Zuuren, Keith Goldman, Patricia Logullo, Robert Matheis, Niall Harrison
-
What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-03-04 Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Ksenia Crane, Katie Meadmore, Kathryn Fackrell, Hazel Church, Simon Fraser, Amanda Blatch-Jones
Introduction Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom. Methods Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and
-
Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-02-21 Danielle B. Rice, Ba’ Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher
Background The demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to compare characteristics among two groups of reviewers registered in Publons. Methods
-
Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Phillips, Meredith L., Connor, Avonne E., Vander Ley, Kelly J., Naaman, Kevin, Helfand, Mark
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted
-
Gender disparity in publication records: a qualitative study of women researchers in computing and engineering Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Hosseini, Mohammad, Sharifzad, Shiva
The current paper follows up on the results of an exploratory quantitative analysis that compared the publication and citation records of men and women researchers affiliated with the Faculty of Computing and Engineering at Dublin City University (DCU) in Ireland. Quantitative analysis of publications between 2013 and 2018 showed that women researchers had fewer publications, received fewer citations
-
Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-11-18 Karhulahti, Veli-Matti, Backe, Hans-Joachim
Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered
-
Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-09-30 Hesselberg, Jan-Ole, Fostervold, Knut Inge, Ulleberg, Pål, Svege, Ida
Background Vast sums are distributed based on grant peer review, but studies show that interrater reliability is often low. In this study, we tested the effect of receiving two short individual feedback reports compared to one short general feedback report on the agreement between reviewers. Methods A total of 42 reviewers at the Norwegian Foundation Dam were randomly assigned to receive either a general
-
Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-08-02 Diong, Joanna, Kroeger, Cynthia M., Reynolds, Katherine J., Barnett, Adrian, Bero, Lisa A.
Background Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices. Methods We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research
-
Correction to: Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-06-11 Kim Boesen, Anders Lykkemark Simonsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C. Gøtzsche
Correction to: Res Integr Peer Rev 6, 8 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00111-9 Following publication of the original article [1], the authors noted that an incorrect file for Supplementary file 1 had been published. The corrected version of Supplementary file 1 is attached to this Correction and it has also been updated in the original article, accordingly. 1. Boesen, et al. Cross-sectional
-
Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-06-02 Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant, Lauren Supplee, Sina Kianersi, Afsah Amin, Alex DeHaven, David Mellor
The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on
-
Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-05-10 Kim Boesen, Anders Lykkemark Simonsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C. Gøtzsche
Background Healthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they have no added benefits, are more harmful, and are more expensive. The publication of medical advertisements therefore raises ethical questions related to editorial integrity. Methods
-
Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-05-03 Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter, Frans Oort
Background Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors
-
Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-04-15 Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert
Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. These recommendations were developed following discussions
-
Re-evaluation of solutions to the problem of unprofessionalism in peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-02-16 Travis G. Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing, Chi-Yeung Choi, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Jeff C. Clements, Joshua A. Rash
Our recent paper (https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x) reported that 43% of reviewer comment sets (n=1491) shared with authors contained at least one unprofessional comment or an incomplete, inaccurate of unsubstantiated critique (IIUC). Publication of this work sparked an online (i.e., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit) conversation surrounding professionalism in peer review. We collected
-
Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-02-01 Nick Kinney, Araba Wubah, Miguel Roig, Harold R. Garner
Background Scientists communicate progress and exchange information via publication and presentation at scientific meetings. We previously showed that text similarity analysis applied to Medline can identify and quantify plagiarism and duplicate publications in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. In the present study, we applied the same analysis to a large sample of conference abstracts. Methods We
-
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-01-14 Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten
Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers
-
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2021-01-14 Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten
Background Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions
-
Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-12-11 Michael Kalichman
Background Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how
-
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Victor G. S. Queiroz, Thiago C. Moulin, Carlos A. M. Carvalho, Clarissa B. Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E. Henshall, Evandro A. De-Souza, Felippe E. Amorim, Flávia Z. Boos, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor R. Costa, Karina L. Hajdu, Lieve van Egmond, Martin Modrák, Pedro B. Tan, Richard J. Abdill, Steven J. Burgess, Sylvia F. S. Guerra, Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi, Olavo B. Amaral
Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we
-
Doing better: eleven ways to improve the integration of sex and gender in health research proposals Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-11-13 Robin Mason
Background Integrating a sex and gender lens is increasingly recognized as important in health research studies. Past failures to adequately consider sex in drug development, for example, led to medications that were metabolized differently, proved harmful, or ineffective, for females. Including both males and females in study populations is important but not sufficient; health, access to healthcare
-
Do journals instruct authors to address sex and gender in psychological science? Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-10-22 Courtenay Cavanaugh, Yara Abu Hussein
Background Sex and gender influence individuals’ psychology, but are often overlooked in psychological science. The sex and gender equity in research (SAGER) guidelines provide instruction for addressing sex and gender within five sections of a manuscript (i.e., title/abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion) (Heidari et al., Res Integr Peer Rev 1:1-9, 2016). Methods We examined whether
-
MyCites: a proposal to mark and report inaccurate citations in scholarly publications Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-09-17 Mohammad Hosseini, Martin Paul Eve, Bert Gordijn, Cameron Neylon
Background Inaccurate citations are erroneous quotations or instances of paraphrasing of previously published material that mislead readers about the claims of the cited source. They are often unaddressed due to underreporting, the inability of peer reviewers and editors to detect them, and editors’ reluctance to publish corrections about them. In this paper, we propose a new tool that could be used
-
High impact nutrition and dietetics journals’ use of publication procedures to increase research transparency Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-08-31 Dennis M. Gorman, Alva O. Ferdinand
Background The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and the failure of peer review journals to identify and correct these practices. In response, it has been proposed that journals employ editorial procedures designed to improve the transparency
-
Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-08-05 Serge P. J. M. Horbach, Willem Halffman
Background Triggered by a series of controversies and diversifying expectations of editorial practices, several innovative peer review procedures and supporting technologies have been proposed. However, adoption of these new initiatives seems slow. This raises questions about the wider conditions for peer review change and about the considerations that inform decisions to innovate. We set out to study
-
Quantifying professionalism in peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-07-24 Travis G. Gerwing, Alyssa M. Allen Gerwing, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Chi-Yeung Choi, Jeff C. Clements, Joshua A. Rash
Background The process of peer-review in academia has attracted criticism surrounding issues of bias, fairness, and professionalism; however, frequency of occurrence of such comments is unknown. Methods We evaluated 1491 sets of reviewer comments from the fields of “Ecology and Evolution” and “Behavioural Medicine,” of which 920 were retrieved from the online review repository Publons and 571 were
-
Publishing computational research - a review of infrastructures for reproducible and transparent scholarly communication Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-07-14 Markus Konkol, Daniel Nüst, Laura Goulier
Background The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials reproducibly is challenging, several projects have developed solutions to support the release of executable analyses alongside articles. Methods We reviewed 11 applications that can assist
-
Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-06-26 Lonni Besançon, Niklas Rönnberg, Jonas Löwgren, Jonathan P. Tennant, Matthew Cooper
Background Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently
-
Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-05-15 Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson, Scott R. Glisson
Background Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated. Methods Here, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions
-
The limitations to our understanding of peer review Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-04-30 Jonathan P. Tennant, Tony Ross-Hellauer
Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where
-
Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-02-28 Shelby Rauh, Trevor Torgerson, Austin L. Johnson, Jonathan Pollard, Daniel Tritz, Matt Vassar
Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications. Methods The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors
-
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-02-03 Mengyao Liu, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Lucy Pomeroy
Background The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously
-
The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-01-15 Mark Skopec, Hamdi Issa, Julie Reed, Matthew Harris
Background Descriptive studies examining publication rates and citation counts demonstrate a geographic skew toward high-income countries (HIC), and research from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally underrepresented. This has been suggested to be due in part to reviewers’ and editors’ preference toward HIC sources; however, in the absence of controlled studies, it is impossible to
-
Impact of US industry payment disclosure laws on payments to surgeons: a natural experiment Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2020-01-03 Taeho Greg Rhee, Tijana Stanic, Joseph S. Ross
Objectives To compare changes in the number and amount of payments received by orthopedic and non-orthopedic surgeons from industry between 2014 and 2017. Methods Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database from 2014 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of industry payments to surgeons, including general payments and research payments. Results Among
-
Systematic overview of Freedom of Information Act requests to the Department of Health and Human Services from 2008 to 2017 Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-12-01 Alexander C. Egilman, Joshua D. Wallach, Christopher J. Morten, Peter Lurie, Joseph S. Ross
BackgroundThe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides access to unreleased government records that can be used to enhance the transparency and integrity of biomedical research. We characterized FOIA requests to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including request outcomes, processing times, backlogs, and costs.MethodsUsing HHS FOIA annual reports, we extracted data on the number
-
Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-12-01 Pauline A. J. Steegmans, Nicola Di Girolamo, Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
BackgroundTitles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic
-
Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-12-01 Tamarinde L. Haven, Joeri K. Tijdink, H. Roeline Pasman, Guy Widdershoven, Gerben ter Riet, Lex M. Bouter
BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields
-
Testing an active intervention to deter researchers’ use of questionable research practices Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-11-29 S. V. Bruton, M. Brown, D. F. Sacco, R. Didlake
IntroductionIn this study, we tested a simple, active “ethical consistency” intervention aimed at reducing researchers’ endorsement of questionable research practices (QRPs).MethodsWe developed a simple, active ethical consistency intervention and tested it against a control using an established QRP survey instrument. Before responding to a survey that asked about attitudes towards each of fifteen
-
Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-11-27 Holly K. Grossetta Nardini, Janene Batten, Melissa C. Funaro, Rolando Garcia-Milian, Kate Nyhan, Judy M. Spak, Lei Wang, Janis G. Glover
BackgroundDeveloping 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
-
Evaluating ethics oversight during assessment of research integrity Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-11-06 Andrew Grey, Mark Bolland, Alison Avenell
We provide additional information relevant to our previous publication on the quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions. Despite concerns being raised about ethical oversight of research published by a group of researchers, each of the four institutional investigations failed to determine and/or report whether ethics committee approval was obtained for the
-
Development of research integrity in France is on the rise: the introduction of research integrity officers was a progress Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2019-10-16 Hervé Maisonneuve
Background Implementing responsible conduct of research and monitoring bad practices requires time and tact. In France, it was in 2015 that the wishes of those in charge of research proposed the appointment of research integrity officers (RIOs) in all universities, national higher education schools, and research institutions. Our objectives were to search for information to describe the RI development