Reporting

Section edited by Iveta Simera.

This Section considers manuscripts investigating the issues relating to research reporting. Manuscripts evaluating interventions to improve the completeness, accuracy and usability of research reports, development, evaluation and implementation of reporting guidelines, prevention of publication bias and selective reporting, and improvement of readability are particularly encouraged. The Section also welcomes studies or constructive discussions on alternatives to academic publishing (such as reporting in research registries) and other novel approaches aimed at increasing the availability, value and reliability of published research.

  1. Review

    What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review

    The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there ...

    Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen and Adrian G. Barnett

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:4

    Published on: 5 May 2017

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:7

  2. Methodology

    Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations

    Sharing of experimental clinical research data usually happens between individuals or research groups rather than via public repositories, in part due to the need to protect research participant privacy. This ...

    Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Varsha Khodiyar, Andrew L. Hufton and Susanna-Assunta Sansone

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:6

    Published on: 22 June 2016

  3. Methodology

    Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015

    Although the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve th...

    Daniël A. Korevaar, Jérémie F. Cohen, Johannes B. Reitsma, David E. Bruns, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Paul P. Glasziou, Les Irwig, David Moher, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Douglas G. Altman, Lotty Hooft and Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:7

    Published on: 7 June 2016

  4. Review

    Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

    Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of res...

    Shirin Heidari, Thomas F. Babor, Paola De Castro, Sera Tort and Mirjam Curno

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:2

    Published on: 3 May 2016

    The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:8

  5. Methodology

    Developing the Clarity and Openness in Reporting: E3-based (CORE) Reference user manual for creation of clinical study reports in the era of clinical trial transparency

    Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are reported using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E3 on the structure and ...

    Samina Hamilton, Aaron B. Bernstein, Graham Blakey, Vivien Fagan, Tracy Farrow, Debbie Jordan, Walther Seiler, Anna Shannon and Art Gertel

    Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:4

    Published on: 3 May 2016

Advertisement