Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study

Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?

BACKGROUND

Open Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from January 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these articles to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the articles. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the "Instructions for Authors" section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published.

RESULTS

64.8% of the articles (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3-70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the articles. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few articles adopted other practices. Older articles presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and articles published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.

Canadian radiology: 2024 update

Radiology in Canada is advancing through innovations in clinical practices and research methodologies. Recent developments focus on refining evidence-based practice guidelines, exploring innovative imaging techniques and enhancing diagnostic processes through artificial intelligence. Within the global radiology community, Canadian institutions play an important role by engaging in international collaborations, such as with the American College of Radiology to refine implementation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System for ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Additionally, researchers have participated in multidisciplinary collaborations to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence-driven diagnostic tools for chronic liver disease and pediatric brain tumors. Beyond clinical radiology, efforts extend to addressing gender disparities in the field, improving educational practices, and enhancing the environmental sustainability of radiology departments. These advancements highlight Canada's role in the global radiology community, showcasing a commitment to improving patient outcomes and advancing the field through research and innovation. This update underscores the importance of continued collaboration and innovation to address emerging challenges and further enhance the quality and efficacy of radiology practices worldwide.

Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.

METHODS

Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.

RESULTS

One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Fig. 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < 0.05) and World Neurosurgery (p < 0.05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < 0.001) and systematic reviews (p < 0.001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing research quality in neurosurgery.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).

CONCLUSION

This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.