Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gaur PS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7683244 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reporting Survey Based Studies - a Primer for Authors.
Gaur Prithvi Sanjeevkumar PS Zimba Olena O Agarwal Vikas V Gupta Latika L
Journal of Korean medical science 20201123 45
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed b ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSeveral influential aspects of survey research have been under-investigated and there is a lack of guidance on reporting survey studies, especially web-based projects. In this review, we aim to investigate the reporting practices and quality of both web- and non-web-based survey studies to enhance the quality of reporting medical evidence that is derived from survey studies and to maximize the efficiency of its consumption.MethodsReporting practices and quality of 100 random web- and 100 random non-web-based articles published from 2004 to 2016 were assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). The CHERRIES guideline was also used to assess the reporting quality of Web-based studies.ResultsOur results revealed a potential gap in the reporting of many necessary checklist items in both web-based and non-web-based survey studies including development, description and testing of the questionnaire, the advertisement and administration of the questionnaire, sample representativeness and response rates, incentives, informed consent, and methods of statistical analysis.ConclusionOur findings confirm the presence of major discrepancies in reporting results of survey-based studies. This can be attributed to the lack of availability of updated universal checklists for quality of reporting standards. We have summarized our findings in a table that may serve as a roadmap for future guidelines and checklists, which will hopefully include all types and all aspects of survey research.
| S-EPMC6005542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and understand, through data from multiple sources, some of the factors that affect authors' and editors' decisions to use reporting guidelines in the publication of health research.DesignMixed methods study comprising an online survey and semi-structured interviews with a sample of authors (online survey: n = 56; response rate = 32%; semi-structured interviews: n = 5) and journal editors (online survey: n = 43; response rate = 27%; semi-structured interviews: n = 6) involved in publishing health and medical research. Participants were recruited from an earlier study examining the effectiveness of the TREND reporting guideline.ResultsFour types of factors interacted to affect authors' and editors' likelihood of reporting guideline use; individual (e.g., having multiple reasons for use of reporting guidelines); the professional culture in which people work; environmental (e.g., policies of journals); and, practical (e.g., having time to use reporting guidelines). Having multiple reasons for using reporting guidelines was a particularly salient factor in facilitating reporting guidelines use for both groups of participants.ConclusionsImproving the completeness and consistency of reporting of research studies is critical to the integrity and synthesis of health research. The use of reporting guidelines offers one potentially efficient and effective means for achieving this, but decisions to use (or not use) reporting guidelines take many factors into account. These findings could be used to inform future studies that might, for example, test the factors that we have identified within a wider theoretical framework for understanding changes in professional practices. The use of reporting guidelines by senior professionals appears to shape the expectations of what constitutes best practice and can be assimilated into the culture of a field or discipline. Without evidence of effectiveness of reporting guidelines, and sustained, multifaceted efforts to improve reporting, little progress seems likely to be made.
| S-EPMC4398362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. METHODS:We performed a web-based data abstraction from the "Instructions for Authors" of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22. RESULTS:Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their "Instructions for Authors," while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform. DISCUSSION:The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION:UMIN000022486.
| S-EPMC5121955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genome sequencing has recently become a viable genotyping technology for use in genome-wide association studies (GWASs), offering the potential to analyze a broader range of genome-wide variation, including rare variants. To survey current standards, we assessed the content and quality of reporting of statistical methods, analyses, results, and datasets in 167 exome- or genome-wide-sequencing-based GWAS publications published from 2014 to 2020; 81% of publications included tests of aggregate association across multiple variants, with multiple test models frequently used. We observed a lack of standardized terms and incomplete reporting of datasets, particularly for variants analyzed in aggregate tests. We also find a lower frequency of sharing of summary statistics compared with array-based GWASs. Reporting standards and increased data sharing are required to ensure sequencing-based association study data are findable, interoperable, accessible, and reusable (FAIR). To support that, we recommend adopting the standard terminology of sequencing-based GWAS (seqGWAS). Further, we recommend that single-variant analyses be reported following the same standards and conventions as standard array-based GWASs and be shared in the GWAS Catalog. We also provide initial recommended standards for aggregate analyses metadata and summary statistics.
| S-EPMC8637874 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future. Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open. Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor's journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future. Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.
| S-EPMC4006221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.Cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013.Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors' and (5) authors' conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.Only half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.
| S-EPMC4785311 | biostudies-other
Project description:Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to 'road-test' the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.
| S-EPMC3794945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Computer Science researchers rely on peer-reviewed conferences to publish their work and to receive feedback. The impact of these peer-reviewed papers on researchers' careers can hardly be overstated. Yet conference organizers can make inconsistent choices for their review process, even in the same subfield. These choices are rarely reviewed critically, and when they are, the emphasis centers on the effects on the technical program, not the authors. In particular, the effects of conference policies on author experience and diversity are still not well understood. To help address this knowledge gap, this paper presents a cross-sectional study of 56 conferences from one large subfield of computer science, namely computer systems. We introduce a large author survey (n = 918), representing 809 unique papers. The goal of this paper is to expose this data and present an initial analysis of its findings. We primarily focus on quantitative comparisons between different survey questions and comparisons to external information we collected on author demographics, conference policies, and paper statistics. Another focal point of this study is author diversity. We found poor balance in the gender and geographical distributions of authors, but a more balanced spread across sector, experience, and English proficiency. For the most part, women and nonnative English speakers exhibit no differences in their experience of the peer-review process, suggesting no specific evidence of bias against these accepted authors. We also found strong support for author rebuttal to reviewers' comments, especially among students and less experienced researchers.
| S-EPMC7924675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.
| S-EPMC6254423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Title: Gene Expression in Ara-C Resistance in AML A microarray study of altered gene expression in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines Keywords: cell type comparison Keywords: Expression profiling by array
2005-09-01 | GSE2788 | GEO