scholarly journals UKRN Position on Supporting Research Transparency among Research Students

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Research Students

UKRN position statement on supporting research transparency among research students. Written by the UKRN Steering Group. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA).

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Correcting the Research Record

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on correcting the research record. Written by the UKRN Steering Group. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA).

scholarly journals UKRN Position on COVID-19 Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on COVID-19 research. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Meta-Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on meta-research. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Academic Publishing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on academic publishing. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Research Outputs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on research outputs. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Bureaucracy in Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group

UKRN position statement on bureaucracy in research. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion.Methods Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the instructions for authors and if there were no RCT published between January 2016 and January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a “COIs” disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT.Results Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 (94%) were included in the analysis: 67 (77%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (17.2%) had published at least one RCT between 2016-2019. 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]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) were ICMJE-compliant in four cases (4.88%), weaker in 45.12% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or weaker). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with 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. Uniformization of journal requirements vis-à-vis ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals UKRN Position on Responsible Research Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
UKRN Steering Group
Keyword(s):  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Steering Group ◽  
Responsible Research

UKRN position statement on responsible research evaluation. Written by the UKRN Steering Group.

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Lombard ◽  
A. Gasmi ◽  
L. Sulpice ◽  
K. Boudjema ◽  
F. Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

AbstractObjectiveTo describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion.MethodsOnly “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the instructions for authors and if there were no RCT published between January 2016 and January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a “COIs” disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT.ResultsAmong the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 (94%) were included in the analysis: 67 (77%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (17.2%) had published at least one RCT between 2016-2019. 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]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) were ICMJE-compliant in four cases (4.88%), weaker in 45.12% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or weaker). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with 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.ConclusionResearch transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Uniformization of journal requirements vis-à-vis ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document