Articles

RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record

The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms ...

Authors:

Commentary: a broader perspective on the RePAIR consensus guidelines (Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record)

Authors: Zoë H. Hammatt

New COPE guidelines on publication process manipulation: why they matter

Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. This editorial describes what it is, why it is difficult for individual journal editors and pub...

Authors: Jigisha Patel

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but ...

Authors: Zen Faulkes

Correction to: The changing forms and expectations of peer review

Following publication of this article [1] it was brought to our attention that we omitted to provide credit for Table 1. While the content of the table and the systematization of blinding in review have been r...

Authors: S. P. J. M. (Serge) Horbach and W. (Willem) Halffman

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data

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…

Students’ and supervisors’ knowledge and attitudes regarding plagiarism and referencing

Referencing is an integral part of scientific writing and professional research conduct that requires appropriate acknowledgement of others’ work and avoidance of plagiarism. University students should underst...

Authors: Johanna F Lindahl and Delia Grace

Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation

Associations were examined between author-reported uses of reporting guidelines to prepare JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) submissions, editorial decisions, and reviewer ratings for adherenc...

Authors: Jeannine Botos

The changing forms and expectations of peer review

The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed...

Authors: S. P. J. M. ( Serge) Horbach and W. ( Willem) Halffman

Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research

Understanding sex and gender in health research can improve the quality of scholarship and enhance health outcomes. Funding agencies and academic journals are two key gatekeepers of knowledge production and di...

Authors: Olena Hankivsky, Kristen W. Springer and Gemma Hunting

Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics

Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing...

Authors: Barbara McGillivray and Elisa De Ranieri

Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals

Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the ...

Authors: Catherine H. Davis, Barbara L. Bass, Kevin E. Behrns, Keith D. Lillemoe, O. James Garden, Mark S. Roh, Jeffrey E. Lee, Charles M. Balch and Thomas A. Aloia

Research Integrity and Peer Review—past highlights and future directions

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside ...

Authors: Stephanie L. Boughton, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Elizabeth Wager and Elizabeth C. Moylan

Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review

This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Jou...

Authors: Mark Hooper, Virginia Barbour, Anne Walsh, Stephanie Bradbury and Jane Jacobs

Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences

Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, ...

Authors: Joshua D. Wallach, Alexander C. Egilman, Anand D. Gopal, Nishwant Swami, Harlan M. Krumholz and Joseph S. Ross

Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before–after study

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

‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function

In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those...

Authors: John Coveney, Danielle L Herbert, Kathy Hill, Karen E Mow, Nicholas Graves and Adrian Barnett

Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles

Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely re...

Authors: Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte and Jason M. Schmidt

Selective citation in the literature on swimming in chlorinated water and childhood asthma: a network analysis

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

Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study

Winning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual r...

Authors: Adrian G. Barnett, Philip Clarke, Cedryck Vaquette and Nicholas Graves

Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study

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

Improving the process of research ethics review

Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research ...

Authors: Stacey A. Page and Jeffrey Nyeboer

Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue

Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between w...

Authors: Gayle Scarrow, Donna Angus and Bev J. Holmes

Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals

Trial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized contro...

Authors: Richard Gray, Ashish Badnapurkar, Eman Hassanein, Donna Thomas, Laileah Barguir, Charley Baker, Martin Jones, Daniel Bressington, Ellie Brown and Annie Topping

Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments

New metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating c...

Authors: Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Lina Ghosn and Isabelle Boutron

Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors

The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making.

Authors: Jigisha Patel, Mary Pierce, Stephanie L. Boughton and Stephanie E. Baldeweg

Proceedings from the IV Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (IV BRISPE)

Authors: Sonia Vasconcelos, Edson Watanabe, L. P. Garcia, E. Duarte, M. C. Cassimiro, M. M. P. Diós-Borges, A. M. M. Soares, C. H. Debenedito Silva, A. A. P. Santa Rosa, G. A. Fófano, H. S. Pinheiro, A. M. Gollner, C. C. Santos, S. M. R. Vasconcelos, D. C. Machado, P. V. S. Souza…

Mentored peer review of standardized manuscripts as a teaching tool for residents: a pilot randomized controlled multi-center study

There is increasing need for peer reviewers as the scientific literature grows. Formal education in biostatistics and research methodology during residency training is lacking. In this pilot study, we addresse...

Authors: Victoria S. S. Wong, Roy E. Strowd III, Rebeca Aragón-García, Yeseon Park Moon, Blair Ford, Sheryl R. Haut, Joseph S. Kass, Zachary N. London, MaryAnn Mays, Tracey A. Milligan, Raymond S. Price, Patrick S. Reynolds, Linda M. Selwa, David C. Spencer and Mitchell S. V. Elkind

Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central

An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction.

Authors: Melissa Vaught, Diana C. Jordan and Hilda Bastian

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

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

Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey

The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and t...

Authors: Anthony Bozzo, Kamal Bali, Nathan Evaniew and Michelle Ghert

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 ...

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

Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution

It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue....

Authors: Charles W. Fox, Arianne Y. K. Albert and Timothy H. Vines

Comment on Cary Moskovitz’ “Text Recycling in Health Sciences Literature: A Rhetorical Perspective”

The question of covert text recycling from previous publications is discussed. It is argued that, consistent with current guidance, authors may be allowed to covertly recycle a limited amount of their previous...

Authors: Miguel Roig

Text recycling in health sciences research literature: a rhetorical perspective

The past few years have seen a steady rise in the number of health science journals using plagiarism detection software to screen submitted manuscripts. While there is widespread agreement about the need to gu...

Authors: Cary Moskovitz

The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research

Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality re...

Authors: Adrian G. Barnett, Megan J. Campbell, Carla Shield, Alison Farrington, Lisa Hall, Katie Page, Anne Gardner, Brett G. Mitchell and Nicholas Graves

Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity

Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more importa...

Authors: Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson and Gerben ter Riet

Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals

There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence.

Authors: Arianne Y. K. Albert, Jennifer L. Gow, Alison Cobra and Timothy H. Vines

Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application

We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Adviso...

Authors: Liisa Räsänen and Erja Moore

Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal

Plagiarism is common and threatens the integrity of the scientific literature. However, its detection is time consuming and difficult, presenting challenges to editors and publishers who are entrusted with ens...

Authors: Janet R. Higgins, Feng-Chang Lin and James P. Evans

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original resea...

Authors: Jennifer A. Byrne

Do declarative titles affect readers’ perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial

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

Publication proportions for registered breast cancer trials: before and following the introduction of the ClinicalTrials.gov results database

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

Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

I1 Proceedings of the 4^th World Conference on Research Integrity

Authors: Susan Patricia O’Brien, Danny Chan, Frederick Leung, Eun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho Lee, Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz, Yordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky Solomon, Ursa Opara Krasovec…

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

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

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 ...

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

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...

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

A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review

This editorial explains why we are launching Research Integrity and Peer Review, a new open-access journal that will provide a home to research on ethics, reporting, and evaluation of research. We discuss how the...

Authors: Stephanie L. Harriman, Maria K. Kowalczuk, Iveta Simera and Elizabeth Wager

Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in th...

Authors: Paul E. van der Vet and Harm Nijveen

Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency

Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing ...

Authors: Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl and Florence T. Bourgeois