Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

Zhaksylyk, Alikhan; Zimba, Olena; Yessirkepov, Marlen; Kocyigit, Burhan Fatih

doi:10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes of biomedical research are most commonly communicated through publications in scholarly journals. Maintaining research integrity (e.g., requiring ethical approval, peer review, plagiarism checks, and indexing in authorized databases) and the quality [1] of publications through transparency and open practices is essential for clinical and research decision-making [2,3]. However, concerns that some journals operate in a ‘black box’ and are not forthcoming about their processes have been raised [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

Ng,

Liu,

Masood

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Transparency within biomedical research is essential for research integrity, credibility, and reproducibility. To increase adherence to optimal scientific practices and enhance transparency, we propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT) that will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal's operations and transparency policies. This study is part of a program of research to obtain user preferences to inform the proposed JTT. Here, we report on our consultation with clinicians and researchers. Methods: This mixed-methods study was conducted in two parts. The first part involved a cross-sectional survey conducted on a random sample of authors from biomedical journals. The survey asked clinicians and researchers about the inclusion of a series of potential scholarly metrics and user features in the proposed JTT. Quantitative survey items were summarized with descriptive statistics. Thematic content analysis was employed to analyze text-based responses. Subsequent focus groups used the survey responses to further explore the inclusion of items in the JTT. Items with less than 70% agreement were used to structure discussion points during these sessions. Participants voted on the use of user features and metrics to be considered within the journal tool after each discussion. Thematic content analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify the core themes discussed. Results: A total of 632 participants (5.5% response rate) took part in the survey. A collective total of 74.7% of respondents found it either 'occasionally', 'often', or 'almost always' difficult to determine if health information online is based on reliable research evidence. Twenty-two participants took part in the focus groups. Three user features and five journal tool metrics were major discussion points during these sessions. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in six themes. The use of registration was the only item to not meet the 70% threshold after both the survey and focus groups. Participants demonstrated low scholarly communication literacy when discussing tool metric suggestions. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the JTT would be valuable for both researchers and clinicians. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with researchers and clinicians.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

Ng,

Liu,

Masood

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a recent YouTube analysis in Journal of Korean Medical Science suggests that subjective metrics and number of views should not be employed as proxies of scientific evidence and ethical value. 6 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 Several analyses of YouTube videos confirmed that the lack of an evidence-based approach limits the reliability of videos and stressed the importance of posting quality videos by professional institutions. 6 12 Overall, a systematic analysis of 22,300 YouTube videos on a variety of public health topics, dated up to 2020, qualified 40% of video items as useless or substandard. 13 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%