EN

Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Nicolas Lombard, A. Gasmi, L. Sulpice, K. Boudjema, Damien Bergeat

Objective

To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.

Methods

Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018.

The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available.

Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.

Results

Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75].

The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41).

No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors.

Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.

Conclusion

Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

URL : Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04756-7

EN

Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Silvia Gianola, Tiago S. Jesus, Silvia Bargeri, Greta Castellini

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews.

To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks).

In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews.

The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001).

Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints.

The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still “recruiting”.

PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number.

The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

URL : Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240123

EN

Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Anna Severin, Joanna Chataway

Stakeholders might have diverging or conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how stakeholder groups perceive peer review and what they expect from it. We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early‐, mid‐, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers.

We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Stakeholders expected peer review (1) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (2) to conduct quality control, (3) to improve manuscripts, (4) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journal, (5) to provide a decision‐making tool for editors, (6) to provide feedback by peers, (7) to curate a community, and (8) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles.

Stakeholders with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in the value they attached to the functions of peer review. Early‐ and mid‐career researchers valued social and feedback functions of peer review, while senior career researchers and editors expected it to instead perform a technical assessment of manuscripts and serve as a decision‐making tool.

Publishers expected peer review to assess the suitability of manuscripts for their journals and to provide a seal of accreditation. This revealed a potential tension between functions of peer review. Stakeholder expectations are shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

URL : Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336

EN

Branding Scholarly Journals: Transmuting Symbolic Capital into Economic Capital

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Mahdi Khelfaoui, Yves Gingras

In this paper, we analyze a relatively recent commercial strategy devised by large academic publishers, consisting in the branding of their most prestigious scientific journals. Using Pierre Bourdieu’s model of capital conversion, we show how publishers transfer the symbolic capital of an already prestigious journal to derivative journals that capture part of the prestige of the original brand and transform it into new economic capital.

As shown by their high impact factors, these new journals, bearing the mark of the original journal in their titles, are rapidly adopted by researchers. Through manuscript transfer mechanisms, publishers also use part of the papers rejected by their flagship and highly selective jour-nals to recycle and monetize them inlower impactor open access derivativejournals of their lists.

URL : https://cirst2.openum.ca/files/sites/179/2020/08/Note_2020-03-branding.pdf

EN

Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Madeleine Pownall, Catherine Talbot, Anna Henschel, Alexandra Lautarescu, Kelly Lloyd, Helena Hartmann, Kohinoor Darda, Karen Tang, Parise Carmichael-Murphy, Jaclyn Siegel

Open Science aims to improve the rigour, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the Open Science movement has been championed by some Early Career Researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles.

Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the Open Science movement.

We, ten feminist ECRs in psychology, from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore Open Science through a feminist lens, to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards Open Science.

We also propose how ECRs can act as grassroots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which Open Science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with six practical recommendations for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with Open Science practices in their own research.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f9m47

FR

Entrepôts de données de recherche : mesurer l’impact de l’Open Science à l’aune de la consultation des jeux de données déposés

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author  : Violaine Rebouillat

Les décennies 2000 et 2010 ont vu se développer un nombre croissant de e-infrastructures de recherche, rendant plus aisés le partage et l’accès aux données scientifiques. Cette tendance s’est vue renforcée par l’essor de politiques d’ouverture des données, lesquelles ont donné lieu à une multiplication de réservoirs de données – aussi appelés « entrepôts de données ». Quantifier et qualifier l’utilisation des données rendues publiques constitue un élément essentiel pour évaluer l’impact des politiques d’ouverture des données.

Dans cet article, nous questionnons l’utilisation des données déposées dans les entrepôts. Dans quelle mesure ces données sont-elles consultées et téléchargées ?

L’article présente les premiers résultats d’une enquête quantitative auprès de 20 entrepôts. Il esquisse deux tendances, qui restent à ce stade propres à l’échantillon étudié, à savoir : (1) l’augmentation globale du nombre de consultations, de téléchargements et de données disponibles dans les entrepôts sur la période étudiée (2015-2020), et (2) la concentration des téléchargements sur une proportion relativement faible des données de l’entrepôt (de l’ordre de 10% à 30%).

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02928817/

FR

Data librarian et services aux chercheurs en bibliothèque universitaire : de nouvelles médiations en émergence

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Florence Thiault

Les services à destination des chercheurs se développent dans les bibliothèques universitaires françaises. L’augmentation de la quantité de données de recherche produites et réutilisées par les chercheurs pose des défis importants aux bibliothèques universitaires.

De nouvelles compétences associées à un profil professionnel spécifique celui de datalibrarian sont nécessaires pour assurer ces missions d’accompagnement à la recherche. Ce spécialiste des données à vocation à accompagner les chercheurs dans le cycle de vie de la recherche en assurant une collaboration active avec une série d’acteurs internes et externes.

Cette communication présente trois cas d’études emblématiques dans le registre des médiations à destination des chercheurs : l’analyse de la production scientifique, l’accompagnement à la recherche et à la publication ainsi que la gestion des données de recherche.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02972705