Dataset Information

Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network.

ABSTRACT: Biomedical journals continue to be the single most important conduit for disseminating biomedical knowledge. Unlike clinical medicine, where evidence is considered fundamental to practice, journals still operate largely in a 'black box' mode without sufficient evidence to drive their practice. We believe there is an immediate need to substantially increase the amount and quality of research by journals to ensure their practice is as evidence based as possible. To achieve this goal, we are proposing the development of an international 'best practice journal research network'. We invite journals and others to join the network. Such a network is likely to improve the quality of journals. It is also likely to address many unanswered questions in publication science, including peer review, which can provide robust and generalizable answers.

SUBMITTER: Moher D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5056479 | biostudies-other | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network.

Moher David D Ravaud Philippe P

BMC medicine 20161010 1

Biomedical journals continue to be the single most important conduit for disseminating biomedical knowledge. Unlike clinical medicine, where evidence is considered fundamental to practice, journals still operate largely in a 'black box' mode without sufficient evidence to drive their practice. We believe there is an immediate need to substantially increase the amount and quality of research by journals to ensure their practice is as evidence based as possible. To achieve this goal, we are propos ...[more]

PMID: 27719671

Similar Datasets

Project description:Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial participants have a right to be informed throughout the entire process of human subject research. As part of this pillar of research ethics, participants and other stakeholders should be made aware of research findings after a trial has been completed. Though participants have both a right, and a desire to be informed of research outcomes, studies show that they rarely receive communication about study findings. Our aim was (1) to understand what, if any, role communication plans play in current global health clinical research protocols and (2) to use our findings to develop a communication plan template tailored to clinical research carried out in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) while minimizing colonial assumptions. While the template was drafted in the LMIC context, the principles are universally applicable and should be considered best practices for all global health clinical trials.MethodsWe carried out a mixed-method study over a period of 6 months to understand the role of communication with study participants and other stakeholders in clinical trials. The semiquantitative analysis included mining publicly available clinical trial protocols for communication-related language. Qualitative interviews (n = 7) were used to gather knowledge and insight from clinical trial experts to inform the development of a communication plan template.ResultsNone of the 48 mined clinical trial protocols included a communication plan. Of the 48, 21% (n = 21) protocols included communication-related language, and 10% (n = 5) described plans to share trial results with participants.ConclusionThe use of communication plans in global health clinical trials is lacking. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth analysis of communication plans in clinical trials to date. We recommend that researchers utilize the developed communication plan template throughout the entire research process to ensure a human-centered approach to participant communication. This communication plan should apply to all phases of a research trial, with a particular emphasis on plans to share results in an accessible and engaging manner once the trial has been completed.

Project description:ObjectiveThe San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for assessing biomedical research quality and impact, yet academic organizations continue to employ traditional measures such as Journal Impact Factor. We aimed to identify and prioritize measures for assessing research quality and impact.MethodsWe conducted a review of published and grey literature to identify measures of research quality and impact, which we included in an online survey. We assembled a panel of researchers and research leaders, and conducted a two-round Delphi survey to prioritize measures rated as high (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 80% of respondents) or moderate (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 50% of respondents) importance.ResultsWe identified 50 measures organized in 8 domains: relevance of the research program, challenges to research program, or productivity, team/open science, funding, innovations, publications, other dissemination, and impact. Rating of measures by 44 panelists (60%) in Round One and 24 (55%) in Round Two of a Delphi survey resulted in consensus on the high importance of 5 measures: research advances existing knowledge, research plan is innovative, an independent body of research (or fundamental role) supported by peer-reviewed research funding, research outputs relevant to discipline, and quality of the content of publications. Five measures achieved consensus on moderate importance: challenges to research productivity, potential to improve health or healthcare, team science, collaboration, and recognition by professional societies or academic bodies. There was high congruence between researchers and research leaders across disciplines.ConclusionsOur work contributes to the field by identifying 10 DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact, a more comprehensive and explicit set of measures than prior efforts. Research is needed to identify strategies to overcome barriers of use of DORA-compliant measures, and to "de-implement" traditional measures that do not uphold DORA principles yet are still in use.

Dataset Information

Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network.

Publications

Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets