Assessment of pharmacovigilance guidelines in the Southern African Development Community: A document review

BACKGROUND

Lack of harmonization in pharmacovigilance (PV) practice in resource-limited states in Africa has led to differentiation and marginalization, thus creating an environment where weak or absent PV systems may benefit from regional guidelines.

PURPOSE

To compare the PV guidelines of Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states to international guidelines and identify areas for improvement for aligning PV practice within the SADC region.

METHODS

We utilized a 73-item checklist to assess the PV guidelines of the SADC member states. Checklist parameters were rated using binary scoring.

RESULTS

Only seven (Botswana, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) of the 16 SADC member states had guidelines to assess. Of these, only four had supporting legislation. All seven national medicines regulatory authorities (NMRA)'s guidelines required reporting of local serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Four NMRAs implemented device vigilance; none specified submission timelines for ADRs associated with substandard or falsified medicines. Only three NMRAs required electronic transmission of individual case safety reports in the E2B format. Five NMRAs mandated safety monitoring during interventional clinical trials. Five NMRAs required aggregate reporting through periodic safety update reports. Only two NMRAs required submission of the development safety update report. Regarding risk management, four NMRAs required notification of actions taken by foreign NMRAs and four NMRAs expected to review Dear Healthcare Professional Letters before distribution by the marketing authorization holder.

CONCLUSIONS

Areas for improvement of guidelines to establish common process standards and allow for synchronized submissions of comparable data to SADC NMRAs are provided.

Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.

METHODS

We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.

RESULTS

We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.

Using AI Tools in Writing Peer Review Reports: Should Academic Journals Embrace the Use of ChatGPT?

This letter highlights a pressing issue regarding the absence of established editorial policies for the utilization of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in the peer review process. The increasing adoption of AI tools in academic publishing necessitates the formulation of standardized guidelines to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Without clear editorial policies, there is a threat of compromising the integrity of the peer review process and undermining the credibility of academic publications. Urgent attention is needed to address this gap and establish robust protocols that govern the use of AI tools in peer review.

Top 100 most-cited articles on tau protein: a bibliometric analysis and evidence mapping

Background

Tau, a microtubule-associated protein extensively distributed within the central nervous system (CNS), exhibits close associations with various neurodegenerative disorders. Here, we aimed to conduct a qualitative and quantitative bibliometric study of the top 100 most-cited publications on tau protein and reveal the current research hotspots and future perspectives.

Methods

The relevant literature was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace (v6.2.R4) and VOSviewer (1.6.19) were adopted for bibliometric analysis with statistical and visual analysis.

Results

Citations per article ranged from 615 to 3,123, with a median number of 765.5 times. "Neuroscience" emerged as the most extensively researched subject in this field. The USA has emerged as the leading country, with a publication record (n = 65), total citations (n = 66,543), strong centrality (0.29), and extensive international collaborations. Harvard University (n = 11) and the University of California, San Francisco (n = 11) were the top two institutions in terms of publications. Neuron dominated with 13 articles in the 37 high-quality journals. M. Goedert from the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was the most productive (n = 9) and top co-cited (n = 179) author. The most frequently studied keywords were Alzheimer's disease (n = 38). Future research is anticipated to intensify its focus on the pathogenesis of various tau-related diseases, emphasizing the phosphorylation and structural alterations of tau protein, particularly in Alzheimer's disease.

Conclusion

The pathogenesis of various tau-related diseases, including the phosphorylation and structural alterations of the tau protein, will be the primary focus of future research, with particular emphasis on Alzheimer's disease as a central area of investigation.

Co-designing action-oriented mental health conversations between care providers and ageing Canadians in the community: a participatory mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The mental health of ageing Canadians is a growing concern, particularly post-pandemic. Older adults face systemic ageism and mental health stigma as pervasive barriers to seeking needed mental health support, care and treatment within health and social care systems. These barriers are exacerbated when service providers focus on physical healthcare needs or lack the skills and confidence to talk about and/or address mental health during routine visits. This study aims to co-design and test an evidence-based approach to mental health conversations at the point-of-care in home and community settings with older adults, family and friend caregivers and health and social care providers that could facilitate help-seeking activities and care access.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A participatory mixed-methods study design will be applied, guided by a Working Group of experts-by-experience (n=30). Phase 1 engages ageing Canadians in four online workshops (n=60) and a national survey (n=1000) to adapt an evidence-based visual model of mental health for use with older adults in home and community care. Phase 2 includes six co-design workshops with community providers (n=90) in rural and urban sites across three Canadian provinces to co-design tools, resources and processes for enabling the use of the adapted model as a conversation guide. Phase 3 involves pilot and feasibility testing the co-designed conversations with older adult clients of providers from Phase 2 (n=180).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Phases 1 and 2 of this study have received ethics clearance at the University of Waterloo (ORE #44187), University of British Columbia (#H22-02306) and St. Francis Xavier University (#26075). While an overview of Phase 3 is included, details will rely on Phase 2 outcomes. Knowledge mobilisation activities will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, webinars, newsletters, infographics and policy briefs. Interested audiences may include community organisations, policy and decision-makers and health and social care providers.

Questionable research practices of medical and dental faculty in Pakistan - a confession

PURPOSE

Intellectual honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of conducting any form of research. Over the last few years, scholars have shown great concerns over questionable research practices (QRPs) in academia. This study aims to investigate the questionable research practices amongst faculty members of medical and dental colleges in Pakistan.

METHOD

A descriptive multi-institutional online survey was conducted from June-August 2022. Based on previous studies assessing research misconduct, 43 questionable research practices in four domains: Data collection & storage, Data analysis, Study reporting and Collaboration & authorship were identified and investigated. Descriptive (Frequencies, Percentages, Mean, SD) and Inferential (chi square) statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 654 faculty members responded. Every respondent reported committing at least one QRP in their career. The most common QRPs included deliberately failing to mention funding, publishing program evaluation data not meant for research purposes or approved by an ethical body, inappropriately storing identifiable information and non-disclosure of any conflicts. There was significant association of age, gender and academic rank with QRPs in 'Data collection and storage' and 'Data Analysis' domains.

CONCLUSION

Medical and dental faculty members participating in this study are involved in a range of questionable research practices (QRPs) in Pakistan. Their confession might have contributed to the faculty developing self-awareness and reinforcing academic integrity. There is a need for reviewing policies and practices to improve research culture. Future research should explore the factors resulting in such practices.

Sequential versus Standard Triple Therapy for First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: An Update

BACKGROUND

non-bismuth sequential therapy (SEQ) was suggested as a first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment alternative to standard triple therapy (STT).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of 10-day SEQ vs. STT (of at least 7 days) using bibliographical searches up to July 2021, including treatment-naïve adult or children. The intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate and the risk difference (RD) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 RCTs were evaluated, including 19,657 patients (9486 in SEQ; 10,171 in STT). Overall, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs. 75%; RD 0.08; p < 0.001). The results were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 68%), and 38 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies. Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with clarithromycin resistance only and all geographical areas but South America could benefit more from SEQ. Both therapies have evolved over the years, showing similar results when STT lasted 14 days; however, a tendency toward lower SEQ efficacy was noted from 2010 onwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to 2010, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT, notably when 7-day STT was prescribed. A tendency toward lower differences between SEQ and STT has been noted, especially when using 10-day STT. None of the therapies achieved an optimal efficacy and therefore cannot be recommended as a valid first-line H. pylori treatment.

Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature

The present study explores the major reasons for committing plagiarism, as reported in published literature. One hundred sixty-six peer-reviewed articles, which were retrieved from the Scopus database, were carefully examined to find out the research studies conducted to explore the most common reasons for academic cheating among students and researchers in different disciplines in higher education. An analysis of collected literature reveals that 19 studies were conducted to identify the perceived reasons of committing plagiarism. Four studies with similar constructs of perceived reasons of committing plagiarism, namely busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness, easy accessibility of electronic resources, poor knowledge in research writing and correct citation and lack of serious penalty, were conducted. The pooled mean and standard deviation of the four studies reveal that easy accessibility of electronic resources (Mean = 3.6, SD = 0.81), unawareness of instructions (Mean = 3.0, SD = 0.89), and busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness (Mean = 2.89, SD = 1.0) are important perceived reasons for committing plagiarism. The study findings could help create an effective intervention and a robust anti-plagiarism policy for academic institutions, administrators, and policymakers in detecting academic dishonesty while emphasizing the value of integrity in academic pursuit.

Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research

Climate change stood out as an important ethical issue that is contemplated, at least among early-stage researchers, in Buedo and colleagues' collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research. It is about time that all scientists and researchers, young or old, to stand to be accountable for our contributions toward environmental crises in our work, and conversely to think about how these crises could be mitigated by our research.

The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.

Beyond the Organism versus Machine Dichotomy: A Review of Ethical Concerns in Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is a technology that brings new possibilities and benefits, as well as new ethical concerns. We have performed a systematic review and thematic analysis of papers that deal with the possible ethical and social issues surrounding SynBio. We found that articles mention deontological concerns related to tinkering with life and more consequentialist matters related to biosafety and biosecurity. At the same time, justice aspects, such as socioeconomic and environmental impacts, are far less mentioned. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic study of the ethical issues that SynBio researchers in the lab encounter on a day-to-day basis.

More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists' perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase

In recent years there have been calls to improve ethics in preclinical research. Promoting ethics in preclinical research should consider the perspectives of scientists. Our study aims to explore researchers' perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase. Using interviews and focus groups, we collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research from experienced (n = 11) and early-stage researchers (ESRs) (n = 14) working in a gene therapy and regenerative medicine consortium. A recurring theme among ESRs was the impact of health-related preclinical research on climate change. They highlighted the importance of strengthening ethics in relations within the scientific community. Experienced researchers were focused on technicalities of methods used in preclinical research. They stressed the need for more safeguards to protect the sensitive personal data they work with. Both groups drew attention to the importance of the social context of research and its social impact. They agreed that it is important to be socially responsible - to be aware of and be sensitive to the needs and views of society. This study helps to identify key ethical challenges and, when combined with more data, can ultimately lead to informed and evidence-based improvements to existing regulations.

Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis

Background

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI (GenAI) have become more common in academic settings, it is necessary to examine how these tools interact with issues of authorship, academic integrity, and research methodologies. The current landscape lacks cohesive policies and guidelines for regulating AI's role in academic research which has prompted discussions among publishers, authors, and institutions.

Methods

This study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore publisher policies regarding AI-assisted authorship and academic work. Our methods involved a two-fold analysis using both AI-assisted and traditional unassisted techniques to examine the available policies from leading academic publishers and other publishing or academic entities. The framework was designed to offer multiple perspectives, harnessing the strengths of AI for pattern recognition while leveraging human expertise for nuanced interpretation. The results of these two analyses are combined to form the final themes.

Results

Our findings indicate six overall themes, three of which were independently identified in both the AI-assisted and unassisted, manual analysis using common software tools. A broad consensus appears among publishers that human authorship remains paramount and that the use of GenAI tools is permissible but must be disclosed. However, GenAI tools are increasingly acknowledged for their supportive roles, including text generation and data analysis. The study also discusses the inherent limitations and biases of AI-assisted analysis, necessitating rigorous scrutiny by authors, reviewers, and editors.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition of AI's role as a valuable auxiliary tool in academic research, but one that comes with caveats pertaining to integrity, accountability, and interpretive limitations. This study used a novel analysis supported by GenAI tools to identify themes emerging in the policy landscape, underscoring the need for an informed, flexible approach to policy formulation that can adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review.

METHOD

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software.

RESULT

Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Disruptive consequences of monosodium glutamate on male reproductive function: A review

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is one of the most extensively used flavour enhancers worldwide. Although it is widely regarded as a safe food additive with no recommended daily dosage, its over-consumption has been associated with notably pathophysiological events in various tissues and organs of the body. Previous studies have reported of the neuro- cardio- and hepato- toxic effects of its excessive exposure. Moreover, the food additive instigates metabolic dysfunction. It has been established that MSG damages male reproductive accessory organs like prostate glands and epididymis. In addition, it impairs serum enzymatic activities and serum levels of testosterone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone, luteinizing hormone and cholesterol. Reduced sperm count, sperm motility, sperm morphology, and sperm viability, imbalances in male reproductive hormones, alongside alteration in the histoarchitecture of the testes and other male reproductive tissues have also been connected with excessive exposure to MSG. Literature reports affirm the link between the over-consumption of MSG and reproductive organ weight and male sexual behaviour. This review article addresses the multi-systemic effects of exposure to MSG and the possible mechanism of action of the compound with a focus on the negative implications of the food additive on male reproductive functions and the possible role of natural antioxidants in male reproductive functions. carefully selected keywords were used during the literature search to gather credible and up-to-date information about the subject matter.

Dexmedetomidine for end of life sedation: retrospective cohort comparison study

OBJECTIVES

Infused sedatives are often utilised to alleviate distress at the end of life. Which sedative best achieves this is unknown. This study compares breakthrough medication requirements of patients treated with the novel agent dexmedetomidine compared with patients treated with standard-care sedatives.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-cohort comparison. Two studies of patients at the end of life under sedation at the same palliative care unit, one utilising novel sedatives, and the other standard care were compared. Breakthrough medication requirements were compared using paired t-tests, including opioids, benzodiazepines and anticholinergics. Changes in background infusions were compared.

RESULTS

The dexmedetomidine cohort required less breakthrough interventions per day compared with the standard care group, the reduction was significant (2.2 vs 3.9, p=0.003). There was a significant difference in benzodiazepine requirements, with the dexmedetomidine cohort requiring fewer doses per day than the standard care cohort (1.1 vs 0.6, p=0.03). Anticholinergics were more commonly utilised in the standard care cohort but there was no significant difference (p=0.22). Opioid requirements were similar across cohorts with comparable rates of breakthrough use and infusion increases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a reduction in breakthrough medication requirements, particularly benzodiazepines, for patients sedated with dexmedetomidine at end of life.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews

INTRODUCTION

Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work.

AIM

To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal.

METHOD

This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process.

RESULTS

A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts.

CONCLUSION

This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Advancing Precision Medicine with Gene and Cell Therapy in Malaysia: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications

A new era of gene and cell therapy for treating human diseases has been envisioned for several decades. However, given that the technology can alter any DNA/cell in human beings, it poses specific ethical, legal, and social difficulties in its application. In Malaysia, current bioethics and medical ethics guidelines tackle clinical trials and biomedical research, medical genetic services, and stem cell research/therapy. However, no comprehensive framework and policy is available to cater to ethical gene and cell therapy in the country. Incorporating ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) would be crucial to guide the appropriate use of human gene and cell therapy in conjunction with precision medicine. Policy experts, scientists, bioethicists, and public members must debate the associated ELSI and the professional code of conduct while preserving human rights.

The ethics of engineered living materials

Engineered living materials (ELMs) combine living and non-living entities. Their associated ethical concerns must be addressed to promote safety, promote sustainability, and regulate societal impacts. This article identifies key ethical and safety issues by reflecting on fundamental ethical principles. It further discusses a future ethical roadmap for sustainable research in ELMs.

Using saliva epigenetic data to develop and validate a multivariable predictor of esophageal cancer status

Background: Salivary epigenetic biomarkers may detect esophageal cancer. Methods: A total of 256 saliva samples from esophageal adenocarcinoma patients and matched volunteers were analyzed with Illumina EPIC methylation arrays. Three datasets were created, using 64% for discovery, 16% for testing and 20% for validation. Modules of gene-based methylation probes were created using weighted gene coexpression network analysis. Module significance to disease and gene importance to module were determined and a random forest classifier generated using best-scoring gene-related epigenetic probes. A cost-sensitive wrapper algorithm maximized cancer diagnosis. Results: Using age, sex and seven probes, esophageal adenocarcinoma was detected with area under the curve of 0.72 in discovery, 0.73 in testing and 0.75 in validation datasets. Cancer sensitivity was 88% with specificity of 31%. Conclusion: We have demonstrated a potentially clinically viable classifier of esophageal cancer based on saliva methylation.

Towards reproducible radiomics research: introduction of a database for radiomics studies

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the model-, code-, and data-sharing practices in the current radiomics research landscape and to introduce a radiomics research database.

METHODS

A total of 1254 articles published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, in leading radiology journals (European Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, Radiology, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Radiology: Imaging Cancer) were retrospectively screened, and 257 original research articles were included in this study. The categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact tests or chi-square test and numerical variables using Student's t test with relation to the year of publication.

RESULTS

Half of the articles (128 of 257) shared the model by either including the final model formula or reporting the coefficients of selected radiomics features. A total of 73 (28%) models were validated on an external independent dataset. Only 16 (6%) articles shared the data or used publicly available open datasets. Similarly, only 20 (7%) of the articles shared the code. A total of 7 (3%) articles both shared code and data. All collected data in this study is presented in a radiomics research database (RadBase) and could be accessed at https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase .

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, the majority of published radiomics models were not technically reproducible since they shared neither model nor code and data. There is still room for improvement in carrying out reproducible and open research in the field of radiomics.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

To date, the reproducibility of radiomics research and open science practices within the radiomics research community are still very low. Ensuring reproducible radiomics research with model-, code-, and data-sharing practices will facilitate faster clinical translation.

KEY POINTS

• There is a discrepancy between the number of published radiomics papers and the clinical implementation of these published radiomics models. • The main obstacle to clinical implementation is the lack of model-, code-, and data-sharing practices. • In order to translate radiomics research into clinical practice, the radiomics research community should adopt open science practices.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Expanding the genetic programmability of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum

Lactobacilli are ubiquitous in nature and symbiotically provide health benefits for countless organisms including humans, animals and plants. They are vital for the fermented food industry and are being extensively explored for healthcare applications. For all these reasons, there is considerable interest in enhancing and controlling their capabilities through the engineering of genetic modules and circuits. One of the most robust and reliable microbial chassis for these synthetic biology applications is the widely used Lactiplantibacillus plantarum species. However, the genetic toolkit needed to advance its applicability remains poorly equipped. This mini-review highlights the genetic parts that have been discovered to achieve food-grade recombinant protein production and speculates on lessons learned from these studies for L. plantarum engineering. Furthermore, strategies to identify, create and optimize genetic parts for real-time regulation of gene expression and enhancement of biosafety are also suggested.

Frequency and Clinical Significance of Incidental Findings on CBCT Imaging: a Retrospective Analysis of Full-Volume Scans

Objectives

This retrospective study aims to identify incidental findings in cone-beam computed tomography scans of patients irradiated for preoperative evaluation for implant placement and obtained using the same imaging unit as well as the same field of view. The incidence of each incidental finding, as well as the overall incidence, were calculated and the findings were ranked according to their clinical significance.

Material and Methods

A total of 741 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations with extended field of view (15 x 15 cm) were retrospectively evaluated for incidental findings (IFs). These were identified, recorded, classified as to their location, and ranked according to their clinical significance.

Results

The vast majority of CBCT examinations presented at least one IF, resulting in a surprisingly high prevalence in total. If extreme anatomical variants are considered (nasal septum deviation, sinus septations etc.), the cumulative prevalence exceeds 99%. IFs of major significance, that may require immediate attention, are beyond 10% in frequency.

Conclusions

We found high prevalence of incidental findings on cone-beam computed tomography examinations performed for preoperative evaluation for implant placement (99.5% if anatomical variants included). Most incidental findings were of minor significance. Although the number of incidental findings that require immediate attention is relatively low, there is a considerable number of cases that need periodic evaluation and/or referral.

[Benefits and approaches of a quality management system in biomedical research laboratories]

Quality in biomedical research is a much-discussed topic among experts, research institutes, and funding organizations. Quality issues are frequently reported in the scientific and general press (e.g., stability of study results after test retake - "replication crisis"). Quality management systems are a globally accepted and established tool to guide and manage quality and to address quality problems. However, the notion of quality management is often met with resistance among researchers: low resources, too much regulation, restriction of research, and unnecessary bureaucracy are counter-arguments.The idea of implementing a quality management system for research laboratories is nothing new worldwide. There are various approaches by scientists and organizations to establish a quality management system in research laboratories and to develop a value-added system for themselves. Their expectations are an optimization of the research processes as well as an increase in effectiveness and efficiency.This report summarizes publications concerning quality measures and management in biomedical research and explains the background and advantages of quality management systems in organizations, laboratories, and research. A currently ongoing project of the Robert Koch Institute is presented as an outlook. The article is based on a literature review in English and German. In addition, internationally and nationally applicable and relevant guidelines were considered.

Broadening the Environmental Lens to Include Social and Structural Determinants of Women's Health Disparities

BACKGROUND

Due to the physical, metabolic, and hormonal changes before, during, and after pregnancy, women-defined here as people assigned female at birth-are particularly susceptible to environmental insults. Racism, a driving force of social determinants of health, exacerbates this susceptibility by affecting exposure to both chemical and nonchemical stressors to create women's health disparities.

OBJECTIVES

To better understand and address social and structural determinants of women's health disparities, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) hosted a workshop focused on the environmental impacts on women's health disparities and reproductive health in April 2022. This commentary summarizes foundational research and unique insights shared by workshop participants, who emphasized the need to broaden the definition of the environment to include upstream social and structural determinants of health. We also summarize current challenges and recommendations, as discussed by workshop participants, to address women's environmental and reproductive health disparities.

DISCUSSION

The challenges related to women's health equity, as identified by workshop attendees, included developing research approaches to better capture the social and structural environment in both human and animal studies, integrating environmental health principles into clinical care, and implementing more inclusive publishing and funding approaches. Workshop participants discussed recommendations in each of these areas that encourage interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, clinicians, funders, publishers, and community members. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12996.

Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning

Background

As the number of limitations increases in a medical research article, their consequences multiply and the validity of findings decreases. How often do limitations occur in a medical article? What are the implications of limitation interaction? How often are the conclusions hedged in their explanation?

Objective

To identify the number, type, and frequency of limitations and words used to describe conclusion(s) in medical research articles.

Methods

Search, analysis, and evaluation of open access research articles from 2021 and 2022 from the Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery and 2022 Surgical Endoscopy for type(s) of limitation(s) admitted to by author(s) and the number of times they occurred. Limitations not admitted to were found, obvious, and not claimed. An automated text analysis was performed for hedging words in conclusion statements. A limitation index score is proposed to gauge the validity of statements and conclusions as the number of limitations increases.

Results

A total of 298 articles were reviewed and analyzed, finding 1,764 limitations. Four articles had no limitations. The average was between 3.7% and 6.9% per article. Hedging, weasel words and words of estimative probability description was found in 95.6% of the conclusions.

Conclusions

Limitations and their number matter. The greater the number of limitations and ramifications of their effects, the more outcomes and conclusions are affected. Wording ambiguity using hedging or weasel words shows that limitations affect the uncertainty of claims. The limitation index scoring method shows the diminished validity of finding(s) and conclusion(s).

Sorry we're open, come in we're closed: different profiles in the perceived applicability of open science practices to completed research projects

Open science is an increasingly important topic for research, politics and funding agencies. However, the discourse on open science is heavily influenced by certain research fields and paradigms, leading to the risk of generalizing what counts as openness to other research fields, regardless of its applicability. In our paper, we provide evidence that researchers perceive different profiles in the potential to apply open science practices to their projects, making a one-size-fits-all approach unsuitable. In a pilot study, we first systematized the breadth of open science practices. The subsequent survey study examined the perceived applicability of 13 open science practices across completed research projects in a broad variety of research disciplines. We were able to identify four different profiles in the perceived applicability of open science practices. For researchers conducting qualitative-empirical research projects, comprehensively implementing the breadth of open science practices is tendentially not feasible. Further, research projects from some disciplines tended to fit a profile with little opportunity for public participation. Yet, disciplines and research paradigms appear not to be the key factors in predicting the perceived applicability of open science practices. Our findings underscore the case for considering project-related conditions when implementing open science practices. This has implications for the establishment of policies, guidelines and standards concerning open science.

Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials

We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called "moral entanglement." Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context through exploration of participants' vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants

OBJECTIVES

A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms.

METHODS

We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn.

RESULTS

Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

Experts' decision-making processes in Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations: A case vignette study

It has previously been demonstrated that decisions made by forensic experts can suffer from issues with both bias and poor reliability. The outcome of Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations can have a major impact on the courts' choice of sanction for a mentally disordered offender. These investigations are performed by multi-professional teams of experts, where each expert is obliged to state their opinion on whether the client has a severe mental disorder (SMD) or not. In the present study, a case vignette design was used to simulate the decision-making process of forensic psychiatric investigations. Of the 73 Swedish experts working with forensic psychiatric investigations, a total of 27 (37%) participated in the study. The results showed that the Swedish experts formulated multiple diagnostic hypotheses about cases throughout the process and revised these hypotheses when presented with new information. There was substantial variation between the experts in which hypotheses were seen as most relevant. While the experts grew more certain of their opinions on SMD during the simulated investigation, there was considerable variation in their opinions both throughout and at the end of the process. Although low statistical power and the sample not being randomized limit generalizations, the results indicate no idiosyncratic patterns in the decision-making processes of Swedish experts or signs of confirmation bias. If used properly, the variation in both process and outcome could be used to safeguard and possibly increase the reliability and validity of the final decision of Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations.

Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapist Journals

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapist journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor (JIF).

METHODS

Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapist journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their JIF was determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-five journals' author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0 to 8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. TOP factor scores were a significant predictor of JIF scores.

CONCLUSION

There is low implementation of the TOP standards by physical therapist journals. TOP factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for JIF scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists.

IMPACT

Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has greatly propelled progress across various sectors including the field of nephrology academia. However, this advancement has also given rise to ethical challenges, notably in scholarly writing. AI's capacity to automate labor-intensive tasks like literature reviews and data analysis has created opportunities for unethical practices, with scholars incorporating AI-generated text into their manuscripts, potentially undermining academic integrity. This situation gives rise to a range of ethical dilemmas that not only question the authenticity of contemporary academic endeavors but also challenge the credibility of the peer-review process and the integrity of editorial oversight. Instances of this misconduct are highlighted, spanning from lesser-known journals to reputable ones, and even infiltrating graduate theses and grant applications. This subtle AI intrusion hints at a systemic vulnerability within the academic publishing domain, exacerbated by the publish-or-perish mentality. The solutions aimed at mitigating the unethical employment of AI in academia include the adoption of sophisticated AI-driven plagiarism detection systems, a robust augmentation of the peer-review process with an "AI scrutiny" phase, comprehensive training for academics on ethical AI usage, and the promotion of a culture of transparency that acknowledges AI's role in research. This review underscores the pressing need for collaborative efforts among academic nephrology institutions to foster an environment of ethical AI application, thus preserving the esteemed academic integrity in the face of rapid technological advancements. It also makes a plea for rigorous research to assess the extent of AI's involvement in the academic literature, evaluate the effectiveness of AI-enhanced plagiarism detection tools, and understand the long-term consequences of AI utilization on academic integrity. An example framework has been proposed to outline a comprehensive approach to integrating AI into Nephrology academic writing and peer review. Using proactive initiatives and rigorous evaluations, a harmonious environment that harnesses AI's capabilities while upholding stringent academic standards can be envisioned.

An overview of the mosquitoes of Saudi Arabia (Diptera: Culicidae), with updated keys to the adult females

Despite the fact that mosquito-borne infections have considerable consequences for public health in Saudi Arabia, there is neither a thorough review of the species that occur in the country nor updated keys for the identification of the adult females. In this study, species accounts are given for 49 Saudi Arabian mosquito species, as well as Aedes albopictus (Skuse), which is not recorded in Saudi Arabia, but is medically important and is found in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Taxonomic notes provide additional information for certain taxa and/or aid their identification.

Updating and evaluating a research best practices training course for social and behavioral research professionals

Introduction

The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Methods and Materials

Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data.

Results

There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with (t = 5.61, p = 0.001), and that they would work differently following the training (t = 2.63, p = 0.01). Open-ended survey responses (n = 99) and focus group (n = 12) data showed how participants felt their work would be affected by the training.

Conclusion

The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan

With the continued spread of the rise of online teaching, and the massive use of 3C products (computer, communication, and consumer electronics), the cases of academic plagiarism or using others' works as own works caused by inappropriate use of the Internet are occurring all the time. However, very little research has been conducted on the cyber ethical climate in relation to cyber academic dishonesty. This study investigates the structural relationship between cyber ethical climate, cyber self-efficacy, cyber ethical attitude and cyber academic dishonesty, among university and graduate students, and develops a multiple mediation model. A total of 812 university and graduate students from 32 universities in Taiwan completed the online questionnaire. The results of the study show that the multiple mediation model is valid and find that the cyber ethical climate creates a favorable context for organizing members to demonstrate cyber ethical behavior, demonstrating the importance of mutual influence on cyber academic dishonesty between the cyber ethical climate created by teachers and the cyber ethical climate of class peers. Based on these results, we deeply examine the practical implications and make specific recommendations to improve the cyber ethical behavior of university and graduate students.

Ten Years later: Assessments of the integrity of publications from one research group with multiple retractions

When a research group has multiple retracted publications and/or research misconduct by a member is evident, there is a risk that its other publications are unreliable, so a comprehensive assessment of the group's publications is advisable. We analyzed the comprehensiveness of assessment of the integrity of 300 publications by a research group with numerous retractions and known research misconduct, for 292 of which we raised concerns to publishers and academic institutions between 3/2013 and 2/2020. By 4/2023, 91 (30%) publications had not been assessed by either publisher or academic institution. Publishers had assessed 185 (63%) publications. The 4 academic institutions had assessed 5/36 (14%), 56/216 (26%), 30/50 (60%) and 40/66 (61%) publications. Unprompted assessments, those undertaken without our notification of concerns, occurred for 24 (8%) publications, 3 (1%) by publishers and 21 (7%) by academic institutions. Among 32 journals with ≥2 affected publications, no unprompted assessments of the remaining publication(s) occurred after notification of concerns about the index publication(s). Publishers retracted 58/84 (69%) publications which institutions also assessed and decided needed no editorial action. These analyses demonstrate the failure of publishers and institutions to comprehensively and spontaneously determine the integrity of publications in a setting of known misconduct and multiple retractions.

New evidence-based practice: Artificial intelligence as a barrier breaker

The concept of evidence-based practice has persisted over several years and remains a cornerstone in clinical practice, representing the gold standard for optimal patient care. However, despite widespread recognition of its significance, practical application faces various challenges and barriers, including a lack of skills in interpreting studies, limited resources, time constraints, linguistic competencies, and more. Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of a groundbreaking technological revolution known as artificial intelligence. Although artificial intelligence has become increasingly integrated into our daily lives, some reluctance persists among certain segments of the public. This article explores the potential of artificial intelligence as a solution to some of the main barriers encountered in the application of evidence-based practice. It highlights how artificial intelligence can assist in staying updated with the latest evidence, enhancing clinical decision-making, addressing patient misinformation, and mitigating time constraints in clinical practice. The integration of artificial intelligence into evidence-based practice has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, leading to more precise diagnoses, personalized treatment plans, and improved doctor-patient interactions. This proposed synergy between evidence-based practice and artificial intelligence may necessitate adjustments to its core concept, heralding a new era in healthcare.

Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate 'next' users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio.Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system.

Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process

BACKGROUND

As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors.

METHODS

Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals).

RESULTS

The survey's response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/gmv6z.

Safeguarding scientific integrity: A case study in examining manipulation in the peer review process

This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation.Our study is limited by a few factors including: difficulty collecting peer reviewer data, potentially missing affiliations, and a small sample without comparisons. While this is a case study of one special issue, we do have suggestions for increasing integrity.

Scientists' Views on the Ethics, Promises and Practices of Synthetic Biology: A Qualitative Study of Australian Scientific Practice

Synthetic biology is a broad term covering multiple scientific methodologies, technologies, and practices. Pairing biology with engineering, synbio seeks to design and build biological systems, either through improving living cells by adding in new functions, or creating new structures by combining natural and synthetic components. As with all new technologies, synthetic biology raises a number of ethical considerations. In order to understand what these issues might be, and how they relate to those covered in ethics literature on synbio, we conducted an interview study with practicing synthetic biologists affiliated with a synthetic biology centre in Australia. Scientists identified a range of ethical challenges germane to the field, including precarious employment, pressures from industry, gender inequity, and the negative effects of the hyping of synbio. These challenges differed markedly from those identified in the ethics literature, whose treatment of the harms and benefits of synbio remains largely speculative and abstract. In our discussion of the pragmatic, every day ethical issues synthetic biologists face, we illustrate how issues of waste or research integrity play pivotal roles in everything from lived experiences in the laboratory, to long-term research trajectories guiding the field. In a confirmation of the ethical relevance of our participant's views on the field, we argue that the subjects they raise must be included in any ethical analysis of synbio as a field.

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

Research misconduct refers to a set of unethical practices in research and publication and is the main reason for retraction of articles published in the academic literature. Research misconduct has negative consequences and has generated public scepticism about research, which has led to increasing distrust in science. In this context, a joint effort by the scientific community, academic institutions, scientific journals and research funders is needed to identify and prevent research misconduct. In this paper, we will evaluate what has already been done and what is needed to do to better address research misconduct. The focus of this paper will be on the actions taken by academic institutions, as the first line of defence, and scientific journals, as the gatekeepers of science. However, scientific journals and academic institutions are only a part of a much larger and multistakeholder effort needed to address the challenges scientific research is facing.