Research Transparency in 59 Fields of Medical and Health Sciences: A Meta-Research Study
Sofi-Mahmudi, A.; Raittio, E.; Uribe, S. E.; Khademioore, S.; Zeraatkar, D.; Mbuagbaw, L.; Bouter, L. M.; Robinson, K. A.
Show abstract
BackgroundTransparency in health research is crucial as it allows for the scrutiny and replication of findings, fosters confidence in scientific outcomes, and ultimately contributes to the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society. AimWe aimed to assess five transparency practices in scientific publications (data availability, code availability, protocol registration, conflicts of interest (COI) and funding disclosures) from open-access articles published in medical journals. MethodsWe searched and exported all open-access articles from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)-indexed journals through the Europe PubMed Central database published until March 16, 2024. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the database. We then assessed five transparency practices in the articles using the rtransparent package in R. ResultsThe analysis included 2,002,955 open-access articles from SCIE-indexed medical journals (open-access percentage=59.0%). Of these, 87.5% (95% CI: 87.4%-87.5%) disclosed COI and 80.1% (95% CI: 80.0%-80.1%) disclosed funding. Protocol registration was declared in 6.6% (95% CI: 6.6%-6.6%), data sharing in 7.6% (95% CI: 7.6%-7.6%), and code sharing in 1.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-1.4%) of the articles. More than 76.0% declared at least two transparency practices, while all five practices were declared in less than 0.02%. The data showed an increasing trend in all transparency practices since the late 2000s. Articles published in journals with higher impact factors and articles receiving more citations had increased odds of COI and funding disclosures, as well as data and code sharing. There were notable differences in transparency practices across the disciplines. ConclusionWhile most articles had COI and funding disclosures, adherence to other transparency practices was grossly insufficient. To increase protocol registration, data, and code sharing, much stronger incentives and mandates are needed from all stakeholders.
Matching journals
The top 6 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 97%
- The Rise of Open Data Practices Among Bioscientists at the University of Edinburgh 97%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research 92%
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 96%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. 93%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 92%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- For-Profit Growth and Academic Decline: A Retrospective Nationwide Assessment of Brazilian Medical Schools 90%
- Emerging Applications of NLP and Large Language Models in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Systematic Review 90%
- Semantic and geographical analysis of Covid-19 trials reveals a fragmented clinical research landscape likely to impair informativeness. 90%
"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.