Open science practices in research published in surgical journals: A cross-sectional study
Pathak, K.; Marwaha, J. S.; Chen, H. W.; Krumholz, H.; Matthews, J. B.
Show abstract
Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 95%
- A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal 94%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 95%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 94%
- Financial Conflicts of Interest among U.S. Physician Authors of 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Cross-Sectional Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis 91%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 88%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- The roadmap for implementing value based healthcare in European university hospitals - consensus report and recommendations 87%
- Loon Lens 1.0 Validation: Agentic AI for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Literature Reviews 86%
- Validity, Reliability, and Framing Effects in Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off Studies: A Systematic Review 84%
Similar papers in this journal
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 88%
- The Impact of Income Support Systems on Healthcare Quality and Functional Capacity in Workers with Low Back Pain: A Realist Review 87%
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 86%
"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.