A study’s got to know its limitations

Abstract

Background: All research has room for improvement, but authors do not always clearly acknowledge the limitations of their work. In this brief report, we sought to identify the prevalence of limitations statements in the medRxiv COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 dataset. Methods: We combined automated methods with manual review to analyse manuscripts for the presence, or absence, either of a defined limitations section in the text, or as part of the general discussion. Results: We identified a structured limitations statement in 28% of the manuscripts, and overall 52% contained at least one mention of a study limitation. Over one-third of manuscripts contained none of the terms that might typically be associated with reporting of limitations. Overall our method performed with precision of 0.97 and recall of 0.91. Conclusion:The presence or absence of limitations statements can be identified with reasonable confidence using automated tools. We suggest that it might be beneficial to require a defined, structured statement about study limitations, either as part of the submission process, or clearly delineated within the manuscript.

How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools

“…Finally, tools like Scholarcy provide the author with a quick summary of research articles selected by the user (Gooch et al, 2023). This can be useful for an author who wants to quickly remind themselves of the highlights or findings of studies included in the systematic review, or to summarize external articles for strengthening the discussion section.…”

Three Decades of Volunteering at the ISSCC: The Saratoga Group [Conference Reports]

“…The following five were group leaders in their own time. Vincent Gaudet (1997, University of Waterloo, Canada, andWarren Gross (1999-2003)…”