ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

No abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database.ResultsThe response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM, Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training.ConclusionsJunior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Objective: To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalized journal publications Design: Cross-sectional Setting: International medical literature Participants: Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between March 1, 2020 and October 30, 2020 Main outcome measures: Study characteristics and discrepancies in 1) Results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure (e.g., PCR test), metric (e.g., mean change from baseline), assessment time point (e.g., 1 week post treatment), data reported (e.g., effect estimate and measures of precision), reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis (e.g., chi-squared test), subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary and 2) Spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so that results are viewed more favorably). Results: Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; 8 (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses conducted in journal publications, and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications. At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23 / 67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%) studies, and the journal publications only in 2 (3%) of studies. Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study. Conclusions: The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

No abstract

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 the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press; and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (e.g., scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.