Dataset Information

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

ABSTRACT: Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications. Discussion: The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.

SUBMITTER: Yeung AWK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5611708 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

Yeung Andy W K AWK

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20170920

<b>Background</b>: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. <b>Methods</b>: A list of active neuroscience journals publish ...[more]

PMID: 28979201

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Considering the enormous progress in the field of neuropharmacology and its global importance, as well as the lack of bibliometric studies examining this field as a whole, it is a high time to assess the prevailing topics and citation performances of its research works. Methods: Web of Science (WoS) was searched to identify relevant neuropharmacology articles, which were analyzed with reference to (1) publication year, (2) journal title, (3) total citation count, (4) authorship, (5) WoS category, and (6) manuscript type. The identified manuscripts were analyzed with VOSviewer for further bibliometric parameters, such as citation analysis of institutions, countries/regions, and journals, and to visualize the citation patterns of the terms appearing in the titles and abstracts. Results: The literature search resulted in 43,354 manuscripts. Nearly 98% of them were published since the 1990s. The majority of the manuscripts were original articles (n = 31,360) and reviews (n = 11,266). The top five WoS categories associated with the analyzed manuscripts were Pharmacology/Pharmacy (n = 14,892, 34.3%), Neurosciences (n = 11,747, 27.1%), Clinical Neurology (n = 4,981, 11.5%), Psychiatry (n = 4,464, 10.3%), and Biochemistry/Molecular Biology (n = 4,337, 10.0%). Seven of the top ten most prolific institutions were located in the USA, and one each in Canada, Italy, and the UK, respectively. Manuscripts mentioning certain molecules or pharmaceuticals had high citations per manuscript, such as those reporting about anandamide, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), L-glutamate, clozapine, and curcumin. These terms with at least 50 citations per manuscript were mostly related to cannabis and anti-psychotic drugs, with some dealing with anti-epilepsy effects and Alzheimer's disease. Conclusion: We have identified and analyzed all neuropharmacology articles published since the 1990s. Importantly, the area of neuropharmacology research has been growing steadily due to the global trend in population aging and associated with this continuously increasing number of patients with neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. It is hoped that identification of new pharmaceutically useful molecules or new clinical applications will continue in the future, in order to improve clinical outcomes and to further strengthen the field of neuropharmacology, a research area cross-linking basic and clinical sciences.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the level of overdetection people would find acceptable in screening for breast, prostate, and bowel cancer and whether acceptability is influenced by the magnitude of the benefit from screening and the cancer specific harms from overdetection.DesignOnline survey. Women were presented with scenarios on breast and bowel cancer, men with scenarios on prostate and bowel cancer. For each particular cancer, we presented epidemiological information and described the treatment and its consequences. Secondly, we presented two different scenarios of benefit: one indicating a 10% reduction in cancer specific mortality and the second indicating a 50% reduction.SettingOnline survey of the population in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsRespondents were part of an existing panel of people who volunteer for online research and were invited by email or online marketing. We recruited 1000 respondents, representative for age and sex for the UK population.Main outcome measuresNumber of cases of overdetection people were willing to accept, ranging from 0-1000 (complete screened population) for each cancer modality and each scenario of benefit.ResultsThere was large variability between respondents in the level of overdetection they would find acceptable, with medians ranging from 113 to 313 cases of overdetection per 1000 people screened. Across all scenarios, 4-7% of respondents indicated they would accept no overdetection at all compared with 7-14% who thought that it would be acceptable for the entire screened population to be overdetected. Acceptability in screening for bowel cancer was significantly lower than for breast and prostate cancer. People aged 50 or over accepted significantly less overdetection, whereas people with higher education levels accepted more; 29% of respondents had heard of overdetection before.ConclusionsAcceptability of overdetection in cancer screening is variable. Invitations for screening should include clear information on the likelihood and consequences of overdetection to allow people to make an informed choice.

Dataset Information

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

Publications

Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets