Dataset Information

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.

SUBMITTER: Pathak K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10187447 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study.

Pathak Kavya K Marwaha Jayson S JS Chen Hao Wei HW Krumholz Harlan M HM Matthews Jeffrey B JB

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20230503

Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles pub ...[more]

PMID: 37205325

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Project description:BackgroundLack of reproducibility of preclinical studies has been identified as an impediment for translation of basic mechanistic research into effective clinical therapies. Indeed, the National Institutes of Health has revised its grant application process to require more rigorous study design, including sample size calculations, blinding procedures, and randomization steps. We hypothesized that the reporting of such metrics of study design rigor has increased over time for animal-experimental research published in anesthesia journals.MethodsPubMed was searched for animal-experimental studies published in 2005, 2010, and 2015 in primarily English-language anesthesia journals. A total of 1466 publications were graded on the performance of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding. Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess linear trends over time for the primary outcome of whether or not a metric was reported. Interrater agreement for each of the 3 metrics (power, randomization, and blinding) was assessed using the weighted κ coefficient in a 10% random sample of articles rerated by a second investigator blinded to the ratings of the first investigator.ResultsA total of 1466 manuscripts were analyzed. Reporting for all 3 metrics of experimental design rigor increased over time (2005 to 2010 to 2015): for power analysis, from 5% (27/516), to 12% (59/485), to 17% (77/465); for randomization, from 41% (213/516), to 50% (243/485), to 54% (253/465); and for blinding, from 26% (135/516), to 38% (186/485), to 47% (217/465). The weighted κ coefficients and 98.3% confidence interval indicate almost perfect agreement between the 2 raters beyond that which occurs by chance alone (power, 0.93 [0.85, 1.0], randomization, 0.91 [0.85, 0.98], and blinding, 0.90 [0.84, 0.96]).ConclusionsOur hypothesis that reported metrics of rigor in animal-experimental studies in anesthesia journals have increased during the past decade was confirmed. More consistent reporting, or explicit justification for absence, of sample size calculations, blinding techniques, and randomization procedures could better enable readers to evaluate potential sources of bias in animal-experimental research manuscripts. Future studies should assess whether such steps lead to improved translation of animal-experimental anesthesia research into successful clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundAn up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals.MethodsNursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were extracted from three databases. The quality of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR. The last search, submission, acceptance, online publication, full publication dates and other characteristics of the systematic reviews were recorded. The time taken between the five dates was then computed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the time differences; non-parametric statistics were used to examine the association between the time taken from the last search and full publication alongside other potential factors, including the funding support, submission during holiday periods, number of records retrieved from database, inclusion of meta-analysis, and quality of the review.ResultsA total of 107 nursing journals were included in this study, from which 1070 articles were identified through the database search. After screening for eligibility, 202 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of these reviews was low with the median score of 3 out of 11. A total of 172 (85.1%), 72 (35.6%), 153 (75.7%) and 149 (73.8%) systematic reviews provided their last search, submission, acceptance and online published dates respectively. The median numbers of days taken from the last search to acceptance and to full publication were, respectively, 393 (IQR: 212-609) and 669 (427-915) whereas that from submission to full publication was 365 (243-486). Moreover, the median number of days from the last search to submission and from submission to online publication were 167.5 (53.5-427) and 153 (92-212), respectively. No significant association were revealed between the time lag and those potential factors.ConclusionThe median time from the last search to acceptance for systematic reviews published in nursing journals was 393 days. Readers for systematic reviews are advised to check the time taken from the last search date of the reviews in order to ensure that up-to-date evidence is consulted for effective clinical decision-making.

Dataset Information

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study.

Publications

Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets