Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

Almaqrami, Bushra Sufyan; Hua, Fang; Liu, Yanxiaoxue; He, Hong

doi:10.1111/odi.13257

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, methodological differences and inconsistencies in definitions and reporting in primary studies did not allow the authors of that review [5] to obtain a comprehensive view of transparency practices in dental research. Consistent with the findings from the research articles, investigations of journal policies in dental journals have shown suboptimal adherence to transparency practices, for instance, by not requiring preregistration of trials [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Raittio

Sofi‐Mahmudi

Uribe

2022

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal-and articlerelated information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Raittio

Sofi‐Mahmudi

Uribe

2022

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, most inappropriate citations were interpreting non-significant results as significant (18 of 34). Such errors in citations could be replicated in further research, exert adverse influence over time (Greenberg, 2009), and lead to research waste (Almaqrami, Hua, Liu, He, 2020). Inappropriate citations could be explained by inadequate appraisal of reference articles, which lead to ignorance of available evidence, hinder scientific research progress and influence clinical decision making (Fergusson, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and oral implantology: A cross‐sectional analysis

Yan

Fang

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2018, a data-sharing policy was present in 32/109 (29.4%) and 2 of these had a mandatory policy. 53 This study concluded that at present data-sharing policies are not widely endorsed by dental journals. In a cross-sectional survey, 14 ICMJE-member journals and 489 ICMJE-affiliated journals that published an RCT in 2018 were evaluated with respect to data-sharing recommendations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.Eligibility criteriaAll studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.Sources of evidenceWe searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.Charting methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.Results93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.ConclusionsThere is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

show abstract

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

Cited by 15 publications

References 75 publications

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and oral implantology: A cross‐sectional analysis

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About