Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial

Hawwash, Dana; Sharp, Melissa K.; Argaw, Alemayehu; Kolsteren, Patrick; Lachat, Carl

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030943

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, participants suggested applying the checklist as an online survey within the submission process. This is in line with a few initiatives that are working on improving adherence to reporting guidelines including integrating them in the writing process(6, 26).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…To our knowledge, our study was the first to assess the user's understanding from researchers on their published manuscript has potentially increase their intention to use the tool in further writing exercises. The observed high intention of future use is similar to result we have obtained studying the use reporting guidelines as writing aid (6).…”

Section: Bachelors or Masters Degrees Could Increase The Levels Of Unsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Subjective knowledge considering the utilization and content of the reporting guidelines was measured with two questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very unknowledgeable (1) to very knowledgeable (5). Objective knowledge was measured using six true or false statements, same questions used in a previous study (6). Informed consent was collected electronically in the baseline questionnaire.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few initiatives were developed to increase the use of reporting guidelines and improve their uptake including endorsement by journals. Among the initiatives are writing aids, a technological extension of a reporting guideline to increase the ease of use (4)(5)(6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

Hawwash

Seck

Quaranta

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To test the experience of authors of applying the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut) on a recently published paper. Correct understanding of the items on the reporting guidelines could lead to appropriate use. Design: a cross-sectional study, with a convenient sample. Setting: Participants were asked to return the STROBE-nut data collection template filled on recently published papers. Next, an interview was organised to collect feedback on the process of applying the guidelines. Two researchers involved in the development of STROBE-nut completed the template using the published papers by participants. The filled templates were then compared to assess the measure of agreement of the STROBE-nut items as a proxy of understanding. Participants: Authors who recently published papers reporting dietary assessment or food intake data. Results: We recruited 12 participants between May 2018 and June 2019. Five participants never used reporting guidelines before, while ten reported intention of future use. Half of the participants reported that the use of filling STROBE nut was useful, but some modifications are needed. Agreement between participants and experts on items reporting was generally low. Only two items had moderate weighted kappa agreement nut 1 (Kappa= 0.4, P 0.02) and nut 22.1 (Kappa= 0.47, P 0.01). Conclusions: There is a need to ensure the correct understanding of STROBE-nut by authors. Revisions of STROBE-nut that make the items shorter and simpler can increase understanding. Training researchers at an early stage on the aim of reporting guidelines could potentially increase proper use and decrease subjective interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Bachelors or Masters Degrees Could Increase The Levels Of Unsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

Hawwash

Seck

Quaranta

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To make these type of interventions more feasible, journals could implement them only for manuscripts that are sent out for peer review. The editorial staff could also take advantage of the RG checklists submitted by authors, that could be automatically populated with text using specific software such as the the tool proposed by Hawwash et al 27…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Implementing and evaluating editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency of published research. This survey aims to cast light on the barriers and facilitators that can be expected when implementing diverse interventions, as well as on the potential impact of these interventions.

show abstract

Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality

Davidson

Barbour

Nakagawa

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research institutions and researchers have become increasingly concerned about poor research reproducibility and replicability, and research waste more broadly. Research institutions play an important role and understanding their intervention options is important. This review aims to identify and classify possible interventions to improve research quality, reduce waste, and improve reproducibility and replicability within research-performing institutions. Taxonomy development steps: 1) use of an exemplar paper of journal-level research quality improvement interventions, 2) 2-stage search in PubMed using seed and exemplar articles, and forward and backward citation searching to identify articles evaluating or describing research quality improvement, 3) elicited draft taxonomy feedback from researchers at an open-sciences conference workshop, and 4) cycles of revisions from the research team. The search identified 11 peer-reviewed articles on relevant interventions. Overall, 93 interventions were identified from peer-review literature and researcher reporting. Interventions covered before, during, and after study conduct research stages and whole of institution. Types of intervention included: Tools, Education & Training, Incentives, Modelling & Mentoring, Review & Feedback, Expert involvement, and Policies & Procedures. Identified areas for research institutions to focus on to improve research quality and for further research includes improving incentives to implement quality research practices, evaluating current interventions, encourage no- or low-cost/high-benefit interventions, examine institution research culture, and encourage mentor-mentee relationships.

show abstract

Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial

Cited by 6 publications

References 35 publications

Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About