Skip to main content

Reporting

Section edited by Joerg Meerpohl

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. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have ado...

    Authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant, Lauren Supplee, Sina Kianersi, Afsah Amin, Alex DeHaven and David Mellor

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:9

    Content type: Study protocol

    Published on:

  2. A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper r...

    Authors: Klaas Sijtsma, Wilco H. M. Emons, Nicholas H. Steneck and Lex M. Bouter

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:5

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  3. Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily mea...

    Authors: Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Victor G. S. Queiroz, Thiago C. Moulin, Carlos A. M. Carvalho, Clarissa B. Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E. Henshall, Evandro A. De-Souza, Felippe E. Amorim, Flávia Z. Boos, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor R. Costa, Karina L. Hajdu, Lieve van Egmond, Martin Modrák, Pedro B. Tan…

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:16

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  6. The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and ...

    Authors: Dennis M. Gorman and Alva O. Ferdinand

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:12

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  7. The trend toward open science increases the pressure on authors to provide access to the source code and data they used to compute the results reported in their scientific papers. Since sharing materials repro...

    Authors: Markus Konkol, Daniel Nüst and Laura Goulier

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2020 5:10

    Content type: Review

    Published on:

  10. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides access to unreleased government records that can be used to enhance the transparency and integrity of biomedical research. We characterized FOIA requests to Depar...

    Authors: Alexander C. Egilman, Joshua D. Wallach, Christopher J. Morten, Peter Lurie and Joseph S. Ross

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:26

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  11. Many authors choose to work with professional medical writers when reporting the results of clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review to examine the relationship between professional medical writing su...

    Authors: Obaro Evuarherhe, William Gattrell, Richard White and Christopher C. Winchester

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:14

    Content type: Review

    Published on:

  12. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist impro...

    Authors: Kaitlyn Hair, Malcolm R. Macleod and Emily S. Sena

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:12

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  14. Bisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpi...

    Authors: M. J. E. Urlings, B. Duyx, G. M. H. Swaen, L. M. Bouter and M. P. Zeegers

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:6

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  15. The abstracts of a conference are important for informing the participants about the results that are communicated. However, there is poor reporting in conference abstracts in disability research. This paper a...

    Authors: Eric Badu, Paul Okyere, Diane Bell, Naomi Gyamfi, Maxwell Peprah Opoku, Peter Agyei-Baffour and Anthony Kwaku Edusei

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019 4:1

    Content type: Review

    Published on:

  16. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often complex and expensive to perform. Less than one third achieve planned recruitment targets, follow-up can be labor-intensive, and many have limited real-world gener...

    Authors: Linda Kwakkenbos, Edmund Juszczak, Lars G Hemkens, Margaret Sampson, Ole Fröbert, Clare Relton, Chris Gale, Merrick Zwarenstein, Sinéad M Langan, David Moher, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud, Marion K Campbell, Kimberly A Mc Cord, Tjeerd P van Staa, Lehana Thabane…

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018 3:9

    Content type: Study protocol

    Published on:

  18. There is evidence that direct journal endorsement of reporting guidelines can lead to important improvements in the quality and reliability of the published research. However, over the last 20 years, there has...

    Authors: Daniel R. Shanahan, Ines Lopes de Sousa and Diana M. Marshall

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:20

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  19. Knowledge development depends on an unbiased representation of the available evidence. Selective citation may distort this representation. Recently, some controversy emerged regarding the possible impact of sw...

    Authors: Bram Duyx, Miriam J. E. Urlings, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Lex M. Bouter and Maurice P. Zeegers

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:17

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  20. Accurate reporting on sex and gender in health research is integral to ensuring that health interventions are safe and effective. In Canada and internationally, governments, research organizations, journal edi...

    Authors: V. Welch, M. Doull, M. Yoganathan, J. Jull, M. Boscoe, S. E. Coen, Z. Marshall, J. Pardo Pardo, A. Pederson, J. Petkovic, L. Puil, L. Quinlan, B. Shea, T. Rader, V. Runnels and S. Tudiver

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:15

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  21. 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 ...

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

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2017 2:4

    Content type: Review

    Published on:

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

  22. Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers...

    Authors: Elizabeth Wager, Douglas G. Altman, Iveta Simera and Tudor P. Toma

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:11

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  23. To limit selective and incomplete publication of the results of clinical trials, registries including ClinicalTrials.gov were introduced. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry added a results database in 2008 to ena...

    Authors: Innocent Gerald Asiimwe and Dickson Rumona

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:10

    Content type: Research

    Published on:

  24. 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 ...

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

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:6

    Content type: Methodology

    Published on:

  25. 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...

    Authors: 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

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:7

    Content type: Methodology

    Published on:

  26. 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 ...

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

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:4

    Content type: Methodology

    Published on:

  27. 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...

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

    Citation: Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:2

    Content type: Review

    Published on:

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

Research Integrity and Peer Review

ISSN: 2058-8615

Contact us