Accessibility and Reproducible Research Practices in Cardiovascular Literature
Heckerman, G.; Tzng, E.; Campos-Melendez, A.; Ekwueme, C.; Mueller, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundSeveral fields have described low reproducibility of scientific research and poor accessibility in research reporting practices. Although previous reports have investigated accessible reporting practices that lead to reproducible research in other fields, to date no study has explored the extent of accessible and reproducible research practices in cardiovascular science literature. MethodsTo study accessibility and reproducibility in cardiovascular research reporting, we screened 400 randomly selected articles published in 2019 in three top cardiovascular science publications: Circulation, the European Heart Journal, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). We screened each paper for accessible and reproducible research practices using a set of accessibility criteria including protocol, materials, data, and analysis script availability, as well as accessibility of the publication itself. We also quantified the consistency of open research practices within and across cardiovascular study types and journal formats. ResultsWe identified that fewer than 2% of cardiovascular research publications provide sufficient resources (materials, methods, data, and analysis scripts) to fully reproduce their studies. After calculating an accessibility score as a measure of the extent to which an articles makes its resources available, we also showed that the level of accessibility varies across study types (p = 2e-16) and across journals (p = 5.9e-13). We further show that there are significant differences in which study types share which resources. We also describe the relationship between accessibility scores and corresponding author nationality. ConclusionAlthough the degree to which reproducible reporting practices are present in publications varies significantly across journals and study types; current cardiovascular science reports frequently do not provide sufficient materials, protocols, data, or analysis information to reproduce a study. In the future, having higher standards of accessibility mandated by either journals or funding bodies will help increase the reproducibility of cardiovascular research. FundingAuthors Gabriel Heckerman, Arely Campos-Melendez, and Chisomaga Ekwueme were supported by an NIH R25 grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (R25HL147666). Eileen Tzng was supported by an AHA Institutional Training Award fellowship (18UFEL33960207).
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 96%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 95%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts 94%
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 93%
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Almost significant: trends and P values in the use of phrases describing marginally significant results in 567,758 randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2020 94%
- Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: how open is open? 94%
- Best Paper awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: an international cross-sectional survey 96%
- The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiology Services 89%
- Comparison of troponin and natriuretic peptides in takotsubo syndrome and acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.