Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

12 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A guide for authors and readers of the American Society for Nutrition Journals on the proper use of P values and strategies that promote transparency and improve research reproducibility.

ABSTRACT: Two questions regarding the scientific literature have become grist for public discussion: 1) what place should P values have in reporting the results of studies? 2) How should the perceived difficulty in replicating the results reported in published studies be addressed? We consider these questions to be 2 sides of the same coin; failing to address them can lead to an incomplete or incorrect message being sent to the reader. If P values (which are derived from the estimate of the effect size and a measure of the precision of the estimate of the effect) are used improperly, for example reporting only significant findings, or reporting P values without account for multiple comparisons, or failing to indicate the number of tests performed, the scientific record can be biased. Moreover, if there is a lack of transparency in the conduct of a study and reporting of study results, it will not be possible to repeat a study in a manner that allows inferences from the original study to be reproduced or to design and conduct a different experiment whose aim is to confirm the original study's findings. The goal of this article is to discuss how P values can be used in a manner that is consistent with the scientific method, and to increase transparency and reproducibility in the conduct and analysis of nutrition research.

SUBMITTER: Sorkin JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8488872 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors.

Project description:SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS publish full-length articles on their Web sites and abridged versions in their print journals. We surveyed a stratified random sample of BMJ readers and authors to elicit their preferred format for the abridged print version. Each participant received a research paper abridged in 3 different formats: conventional abridged version, journalistic version and enhanced-abstract version. Overall, 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%-48%) of the respondents said they liked the conventional version most, 31% (95% CI 28%-34%) preferred the journalistic version and 25% (95% CI 22%-27%) preferred the enhanced-abstract version. Twenty-eight percent (95% CI 25%-32%) indicated that use of the journalistic format for abridged articles would very likely stop them from submitting papers to BMJ, and 13% (95% CI 11%-16%) said the use of the enhanced-abstract version would stop them from submitting to BMJ. Publishers of general medical journals who publish shortened articles should consider that authors and readers prefer a more conventional style of abridged papers.

| S-EPMC543983 | biostudies-literature

Dear Readers and Authors.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8330359 | biostudies-literature

Second-generation p-values: Improved rigor, reproducibility, & transparency in statistical analyses.

Project description:Verifying that a statistically significant result is scientifically meaningful is not only good scientific practice, it is a natural way to control the Type I error rate. Here we introduce a novel extension of the p-value-a second-generation p-value (pδ)-that formally accounts for scientific relevance and leverages this natural Type I Error control. The approach relies on a pre-specified interval null hypothesis that represents the collection of effect sizes that are scientifically uninteresting or are practically null. The second-generation p-value is the proportion of data-supported hypotheses that are also null hypotheses. As such, second-generation p-values indicate when the data are compatible with null hypotheses (pδ = 1), or with alternative hypotheses (pδ = 0), or when the data are inconclusive (0 < pδ < 1). Moreover, second-generation p-values provide a proper scientific adjustment for multiple comparisons and reduce false discovery rates. This is an advance for environments rich in data, where traditional p-value adjustments are needlessly punitive. Second-generation p-values promote transparency, rigor and reproducibility of scientific results by a priori specifying which candidate hypotheses are practically meaningful and by providing a more reliable statistical summary of when the data are compatible with alternative or null hypotheses.

| S-EPMC5863943 | biostudies-literature

Automated screening of COVID-19 preprints: can we help authors to improve transparency and reproducibility?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8177099 | biostudies-literature

Perspective: Consideration of Values When Setting Priorities in Nutrition Research: Guidance for Transparency.

Project description:Nutrition research can guide interventions to tackle the burden of diet-related diseases. Setting priorities in nutrition research, however, requires the engagement of various stakeholders with diverse insights. Consideration of what matters most in research from a scientific, social, and ethical perspective is therefore not an automatic process. Systematic ways to explicitly define and consider relevant values are largely lacking. Here, we review existing nutrition research priority-setting exercises, analyze how values are reported, and provide guidance for transparent consideration of values while setting priorities in nutrition research. Of the 27 (n = 22 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 5 grey literature documents) studies reviewed, 40.7% used a combination of different methods, 59.3% described the represented stakeholders, and 49.1% reported on follow-up activities. All priority-setting exercises were led by research groups based in high-income countries. Via an iterative qualitative content analysis, reported values were identified (n = 22 manuscripts). Three clusters of values (i.e., those related to impact, feasibility, and accountability) were identified. These values were organized in a tool to help those involved in setting research priorities systematically consider and report values. The tool was finalized through an online consultation with 7 international stakeholders. The value-oriented tool for priority setting in nutrition research identifies and presents values that are already implicitly and explicitly represented in priority-setting exercises. It provides guidance to enable explicit deliberation on research priorities from an ethical perspective. In addition, it can serve as a reporting tool to document how value-laden choices are made during priority setting and help foster the accountability of stakeholders involved.

| S-EPMC6247169 | biostudies-literature

Editors' and authors' individual conflicts of interest disclosure and journal transparency. A cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the fulfilment of authors' and editors' individual disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a group of highly influential medicine journals across a variety of specialties.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Setting and participantsTop-ranked five journals as per 2017 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 26 medical, surgery and imaging specialties.InterventionsObservational analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPercentage of journals requiring disclosure of authors' and editors' individual potential conflicts of interest (CoI). Journals that were listed as followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and linked to a third party (ie, college, professional association/society, public institution).ResultsAlthough 99% (129/130) of journals required author's CoI disclosure, only 12% (16/130) reported individual editors' potential CoIs. Forty-five per cent (58/130) of journals were followers of the ICMJE Recommendations, and 73% (95/130) were COPE members. Most (69%; 90/130) were linked to a college, professional society/association or public institution. Only one journal did not have policies on individual authors' and editors' CoI disclosure.ConclusionVery few high-impact medical journals disclosed their editorial teams' individual potential CoIs-conversely, almost all required disclosure of authors' individual CoIs. Journal followers of the ICMJE Recommendations should regularly disclose the editors' individual CoIs, as this is the only legitimate way to ask the same transparency of authors.

| S-EPMC6661703 | biostudies-literature

A second chance for authors of hijacked journals to publish in legitimate journals.

Project description:This article proposes the republication of articles that have previously been published in counterfeit websites of hijacked journals. The paper also discusses the technical and ethical aspects of republishing such articles.

| S-EPMC4477759 | biostudies-other

Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8144864 | biostudies-literature

Chinese journals: a guide for epidemiologists.

Project description:Chinese journals in epidemiology, preventive medicine and public health contain much that is of potential international interest. However, few non-Chinese speakers are acquainted with this literature. This article therefore provides an overview of the contemporary scene in Chinese biomedical journal publication, Chinese bibliographic databases and Chinese journals in epidemiology, preventive medicine and public health. The challenge of switching to English as the medium of publication, the development of publishing bibliometric data from Chinese databases, the prospect of an Open Access publication model in China, the issue of language bias in literature reviews and the quality of Chinese journals are discussed. Epidemiologists are encouraged to search the Chinese bibliographic databases for Chinese journal articles.

| S-EPMC2648956 | biostudies-literature

Who's Contributing Most to American Neuroscience Journals: American or Foreign Authors?

Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:With globalization, the contributions of authors from abroad to the American published literature has increased. We sought to determine the changes with time in the proportional contributions of American and non-American authors in the American neurosciences literature. We hypothesized the following: 1) During the past 21 years, manuscript contributions of American institutions have proportionally decreased in neuroradiology, more than in neurosurgery or neurology; 2) contributions of Asian institutions have affected neuroradiology more than neurosurgery and neurology; and 3) American articles garner more citations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We reviewed the May issues of 2 of the highest impact American-based neurology, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology journals published from 1997 to 2017. We counted the number of articles published by nation based on the institution of origin. We looked at trends across time and compared neurology, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology journals. We also gathered data on the number of citations of each article by nationality. RESULTS:We reviewed 3025 articles. There was a significantly lower ratio of American to non-American authorship in neuroradiology versus neurology/neurosurgery journals (odds ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.82). There was a significantly decreasing trend in American authorship across the 21 years in neuroradiology. Of the countries outside the United States, Japan contributed most for neuroradiology and neurosurgery journals, and the UK, for neurology. American-authored articles were cited, on average, 1.25 times more frequently than non-American-authored articles. CONCLUSIONS:Non-American contributions have impacted neuroradiology more than other clinical neuroscience fields with Asian authorship showing the greatest impact. That impact is growing, and the causes are manifold. Nonetheless American-authored articles are cited more.

| S-EPMC7410636 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data