Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Malički, Mario; Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan; Bouter, Lex M.; Mulligan, Adrian; Riet, Gerben ter

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270054

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did so intentionally, as surveys remain the main mechanisms for estimating the prevalence's of misconduct and Questionable Research Practice (QRP), and the low response rates and inadequate reporting has been found for surveys addressing many topics, which also led to creation of several survey reporting guidelines. When using the pooled estimates, we therefore recommend always keeping in mind that they originate from survey research and its inherent deficiencies [48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

Reynders,

Riet,

Girolamo

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31](6 surveys, 2,758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21](11 surveys, 4,272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56](15 surveys, 5,111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12](11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18](2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement. Registration and publication of the protocol. Our protocol was preregistered (https://osf.io/5nvar/) and published at: (https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-01928-1)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

Reynders,

Riet,

Girolamo

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the reviewers can confirm if authors have followed guidelines. A survey of authors, reviewers and editors [ 28 ] showed that reviewers, more than editors, were willing to check and enforce appropriate reporting guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a survey, Malički et al [ 28 ] report the responses from authors, reviewers, and editors; they found that 62% editors and 67% reviewers strongly agreed with the statement: “Journals must check and enforce appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g., those from www.equator-network.org ) for disclosing key aspects of the research and data analysis.” (p. 5/13) The EQUATOR-Network recommends both editorial staff and peer reviewers be involved in checking the adherence to required reporting guidelines as the enforcement routes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Wang,

Wolfram,

Gilbert

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal’s instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

show abstract

“…We have accumulated a large body of empirical evidence on how systems function and how they can malfunction. There is also growing evidence on how to make peer review, publication, and dissemination processes more efficient, fair, open, transparent, reliable, and equitable . Experimental randomized evaluations of peer review practices are only a small part of the literature, but their numbers have been growing since the early trials of anonymized peer review .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads

Ioannidis,

Berkwits,

Flanagin

et al. 2023

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way science is assessed, published, and disseminated has markedly changed since 1986, when the launch of a new Congress focused on the science of peer review was first announced. There have been 9 International Peer Review Congresses since 1989, typically running on an every-4-year cycle, and most recently in 2022 after a 1-year delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 Here, we announce that the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication will be held in Chicago, Illinois, on September 3-5, 2025.The congresses have been enormously productive, incentivizing and publicizing important empirical work into how science is produced, evaluated, published, and disseminated. 2-4 However, peer review and scientific publication are currently at a crossroads and their future more difficult than ever to predict. After decades of experience and research in these fields, we have learned a lot about a wide range of aspects of peer review and scientific publication. [2][3][4][5] We have accumulated a large body of empirical evidence on how systems function and how they can malfunction. There is also growing evidence on how to make peer review, publication, and dissemination processes more efficient, fair, open, transparent, reliable, and equitable. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Experimental randomized evaluations of peer review practices are only a small part of the literature, but their numbers have been growing since the early trials of anonymized peer review. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Research has revealed a rapidly growing list of biases, inefficiencies, and threats to the trustworthiness of published research, some now well recognized, others deserving of more attention. 2,3 Moreover, practices continue to change and diversify in response to new needs, tools, and technologies as well as the persistent "publish or perish" pressures on scientists-as-authors.With the continued evolution of electronic platforms and tools-most recently the emergence and use of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI)-peer review and scientific publication are rapidly evolving to address new opportunities and threats. 23,24 Moreover, a lot of money is at stake; scientific publishing is a huge market with one of the highest profit margins among all business enterprises, and it supports a massive biomedical and broader science economy. Many stakeholders try to profit from or influence the scientific literature in ways that do not necessarily serve science or enhance its benefits to society. The number of science journal titles and articles is steadily increasing 25 ; many millions of scientists coauthor scientific papers, and perverse reward systems do not help improve the quality of this burgeoning Opinion

show abstract

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Cited by 15 publications

References 38 publications

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About