Dataset Information

Web-based survey among animal researchers on publication practices and incentives for increasing publication rates.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Publication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.

Methods

The researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.

Results

In total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).

Conclusion

While the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.

SUBMITTER: Deutsch S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8101964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires are valuable data collection instruments in public health research, and can serve to pre-screen respondents for suitability in future studies. Survey non-response leads to reduced effective sample sizes and can decrease representativeness of the study population, so high response rates are needed to minimize the risk of bias. Here we present results on the success of different postal questionnaire strategies at effecting response, and the effectiveness of these strategies at recruiting participants for a field study on the effects of aircraft noise on sleep.MethodsIn total, we mailed 17 rounds of 240 questionnaires (total n = 4080) to randomly selected households around Atlanta International Airport. Different mailing rounds were varied in the length of the questionnaire (11, 26 or 55 questions), survey incentive (gift card or $2 cash), number of follow-up waves (0, 2 or 3), incentive for participating in a 5-night in-home sleep study ($100, $150 or $200), and address personalization.ResultsWe received completed questionnaires from 407 respondents (response rate 11.4%). Personalizing the address, enclosing a $2 cash incentive with the initial questionnaire mailing and repeated follow-up mailings were effective at increasing response rate. Despite the increased expense of these approaches in terms of each household mailed, the higher response rates meant that they were more cost-effective overall for obtaining an equivalent number of responses. Interest in participating in the field study decreased with age, but was unaffected by the mailing strategies or cash incentives for field study participation. The likelihood that a respondent would participate in the field study was unaffected by survey incentive, survey length, number of follow-up waves, field study incentive, age or sex.ConclusionsPre-issued cash incentives and sending follow-up waves could maximize the representativeness and numbers of people from which to recruit, and may be an effective strategy for improving recruitment into field studies.

Project description:Background. The need for timely, ethical, and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results has seen a rise in demand for publication professionals. These publication experts, who are not ghostwriters, work with leading medical researchers and funders around the world to plan and prepare thousands of publications each year. Despite the involvement of publication professionals in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, especially those that affect patient care, there is limited evidence-based guidance in the peer-reviewed literature on their publication practices. Similar to the push for editors and the peer-review community to conduct and publish research on publication ethics and the peer-review process, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has encouraged members to conduct and publish research on publication planning and practices. Our primary objective was to investigate the publication rate of research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings. Methods. ISMPP Annual Meeting abstract lists (April 2009-April 2014) were searched in November 2014 and data were extracted into a pilot-tested spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in December 2014 to determine the publication rate (calculated as the % of presented abstracts published as full papers in peer-reviewed journals). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test (significance: P < .05) by an independent academic statistician. Results. From 2009 to 2014, there were 220 abstracts submitted, 185 accepted, and 164 presented. There were four corresponding publications (publication rate 2.4%). Over time, ISMPP's abstract acceptance rate (overall: 84.1%) did not change, but the number of abstracts presented increased significantly (P = .02). Most abstracts were presented as posters (81.1%) and most research was observational (72.6%). Most researchers came from the US (78.0%), followed by Europe (17.7%), and the Asia-Pacific region (11.2%). Discussion. Research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings has rarely been published in peer-reviewed journals. The high rate of nonpublication by publication professionals has now been quantified and is of concern. Publication professionals should do more to contribute to evidence-based publication practices, including, and especially, their own. Unless the barriers to publication are identified and addressed, the practices of publication professionals, which affect thousands of peer-reviewed publications each year, will remain hidden and unproven.

Project description:BackgroundEvolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.MethodsThe 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.ResultsA total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.ConclusionsGSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' web-based access to their medical records is expected to promote their role and responsibility in managing their own health and treatments and supporting shared decision-making. As of July 2020, general practices in the Netherlands are legally obliged to provide their patients access to their electronic medical records. Web-based access provision is facilitated and stimulated through a national support program named OPEN.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate general practice staff experiences with providing web-based access; investigate its impact on patient consultations, administrative actions, and patient inquiries; and investigate how it affects routine general practice workflow processes.MethodsIn October 2021, a total of 3813 general practices in the Netherlands were invited to complete a web-based survey that included questions regarding their experiences with the provision of web-based access to medical records and how it affects routine general practice workflow. Responses of general practices that started providing web-based access before 2020, in 2020, or in 2021 were analyzed to identify trends.ResultsOf 3813 invited general practices, 523 (13.72%) completed the survey. Approximately all responding general practices (487/523, 93.1%) indicated that they provide web-based access. Experiences with patients' web-based access were diverse, with 36.9% (178/482) primarily positive, 8.1% (39/482) primarily negative, 42.3% (204/482) neutral, and 12.7% (61/482) could not (yet) indicate how they experienced web-based access. Of the total, two-thirds (311/473, 65.8%) reported an increase in e-consultations and a similar percentage (302/474, 63.7%) indicated an increase in administrative actions associated with web-based access provision. A small proportion of the practices (≤10%) experienced a decrease in patient contacts. Earlier adoption of web-based access was associated with a more positive attitude toward web-based access and more positive experienced effects related to patient contacts and general practice workflow.ConclusionsThe surveyed general practices mainly experienced providing web-based access as either neutral or mostly positive, despite an increased number of patient contacts and administrative burden that were associated with its adoption. Periodic monitoring of experiences is needed to understand the temporal or structural nature of both the intended and unintended effects of patients' web-based access to medical records for general practices and their staff.

Project description:Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014-15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals' caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014-15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prospective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers' attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs). DESIGN:Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Perceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered. RESULTS:The survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for "access only after consent by the principal investigator" and the second largest proportion voting for "access immediately after registration". CONCLUSIONS:The fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.

Project description:BackgroundReducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, crucially, must be embraced by researchers.MethodsWe conducted an international online survey for academics in the field of animal science (N?=?367) to explore researchers' attitudes towards the implementation of animal-free innovations. Through this survey, we address three key questions. The first question is whether scientists who use animals in their research consider governmental goals for animal-free innovations achievable and whether they would support such goals. Secondly, responders were asked to rank the importance of ten roadblocks that could hamper the implementation of animal-free innovations. Finally, responders were asked whether they would migrate (either themselves or their research) if increased animal research regulations in their country of residence restricted their research.ResultsWhile nearly half (40%) of the responders support governmental goals, the majority (71%) of researchers did not consider such goals achievable in their field within the near future. In terms of roadblocks for implementation of animal-free methods, ~?80% of the responders considered 'reliability' as important, making it the most highly ranked roadblock. However, all other roadblocks were reported by most responders as somewhat important, suggesting that they must also be considered when addressing animal-free innovations. Importantly, a majority reported that they would consider migration to another country in response to a restrictive animal research policy. Thus, governments must consider the risk of researchers migrating to other institutes, states or countries, leading to a 'brain-drain' if policies are too strict or suitable animal-free alternatives are not available.ConclusionOur findings suggest that development and implementation of animal-free innovations are hampered by multiple factors. We outline three pillars concerning education, governmental influence and data sharing, the implementation of which may help to overcome these roadblocks to animal-free innovations.