Metrics for openness

Reaching a Tipping Point for Neurorehabilitation Research: Obstacles and Opportunities in Trial Design, Description, and Pooled Analysis

The record-breaking pace of COVID-19 vaccine development and implementation depended heavily on collaboration among academic, government, and commercial stakeholders, especially through data-sharing and robust multicenter trials. Collaborative efforts have not been as fruitful in fields such as neurorehabilitation, where non-pharmacological interventions play a much larger role. Barriers to translating scientific advancements into clinical practice in neurorehabilitation include pervasively small study sizes, exacerbated by limited funding for non-pharmacological multicenter clinical trials; difficulty standardizing—and adequately describing—non-pharmacological interventions; and a lack of incentives for individual patient-level data-sharing. These barriers prevent reliable meta-analysis of non-pharmacological clinical studies in neurorehabilitation. This point-of-view will highlight these challenges as well as suggest practical steps that may be taken to improve the neurorehabilitation pipeline between evidence and implementation.

Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity

Background: Universities closely watch international league tables because these tables influence governments, donors and students. Achieving a high ranking in a table, or an annual rise in ranking, allows universities to promote their achievements using an externally validated measure. However, league tables predominantly reward measures of research output, such as publications and citations, and may therefore be promoting poor research practices by encouraging the “publish or perish” mentality.

Methods: We examined whether a league table could be created based on good research practice. We rewarded researchers who cited a reporting guideline, which help researchers report their research completely, accurately and transparently, and were created to reduce the waste of poorly described research. We used the EQUATOR guidelines, which means our tables are mostly relevant to health and medical research. We used Scopus to identify the citations.

Results: Our cross-sectional tables for the years 2016 and 2017 included 14,408 papers with 47,876 author affiliations. We ranked universities and included a bootstrap measure of uncertainty. We clustered universities in five similar groups in an effort to avoid over-interpreting small differences in ranks.

Conclusions: We believe there is merit in considering more socially responsible criteria for ranking universities, and this could encourage better research practice internationally if such tables become as valued as the current quantity-focused tables.