RESUMEN

The field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) has garnered increasing attention due to its holistic approach to health and well-being. While the quantity of published research about TCIM has increased exponentially, critics have argued that the field faces challenges related to methodological rigour, reproducibility, and overall quality. This article proposes meta-research as one approach to evaluating and improving the quality of TCIM research. Meta-research, also known as research about research, can be defined as "the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives". By systematically evaluating methodological rigour, identifying biases, and promoting transparency, meta-research can enhance the reliability and credibility of TCIM research. Specific topics of interest that are discussed in this article include the following: 1) study design and research methodology, 2) reporting of research, 3) research ethics, integrity, and misconduct, 4) replicability and reproducibility, 5) peer review and journal editorial practices, 6) research funding: grants and awards, and 7) hiring, promotion, and tenure. For each topic, we provide case examples to illustrate meta-research applications in TCIM. We argue that meta-research initiatives can contribute to maintaining public trust, safeguarding research integrity, and advancing evidence based TCIM practice, while challenges include navigating methodological complexities, biases, and disparities in funding and academic recognition. Future directions involve tailored research methodologies, interdisciplinary collaboration, policy implications, and capacity building in meta-research.

RESUMEN

Background/Objectives: In osteopathy, it becomes necessary to produce high-quality evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. The aim of this meta-research study is to assess the reporting quality of RCTs published in the osteopathic field. Methods: The protocol was preliminarily registered on the "Open Science Framework (OSF)" website. For reporting, we considered the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We included all the RCTs, published between 2011 and 2023, investigating the effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) in any possible condition. The search process was conducted on four major biomedical databases including PubMed, Central, Scopus and Embase. A data extraction form was implemented to collect all relevant information. The completeness of reporting was calculated as the percentage of adherence to the CONSORT checklist; the Cochrane ROB 2 tool was considered to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the following five major domains: randomization (D1), interventions (D2), missing data (D3), outcome measurement (D4), selective reporting (D5). Results: A total of 131 studies were included and the overall adherence was 57%, with the worst section being "other information" (42%). Studies with a lower RoB showed higher adherence to the CONSORT. The "results" section presented the highest differences as follows: D1 (-36.7%), D2 (-27.2%), D3 (-21.5%) and D5 (-25.5%). Significant correlations were also found between the preliminary protocol registration, higher journal quartile, publication in hybrid journals and the completeness of reporting (ß: 19.22, CI: 14.45-24.00, p < 0.001; ß: 5.41; CI: 2.80-8.02, p ≤ 0.001; ß: 5.64, CI: 1.06-10.23, p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusions: The adherence to the CONSORT checklist in osteopathic RCTs is lacking. An association was found between a lower completeness of reporting and a higher RoB, a good journal ranking, publication in hybrid journals and a prospective protocol registration. Journals and authors should adopt all the strategies to adhere to reporting guidelines to guarantee generalization of the results arising from RCTs.

RESUMEN

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Researcher fraud is often easy and enticing in academic research, with little risk of detection. Cases of extensive fraud continue to occur. The amount of fraud that goes undetected is unknown and may be substantial. Three strategies for addressing researcher fraud are (a) retrospective investigations after allegations of fraud have been made, (b) sting operations that provide conclusive evidence of fraud as it occurs, and (c) data management practices that prevent the occurrence of fraud. Institutional and regulatory efforts to address researcher fraud have focused almost exclusively on the retrospective strategy. The retrospective approach is subject to controversy due to the limitations of post-hoc evidence in science, the difficulty in establishing who actually committed the fraud in some cases, the application of a legal standard of evidence that is much lower than the usual standards of evidence in science, and the lack of legal expertise by scientists investigating fraud. The retrospective strategy may be reliably effective primarily in cases of extensive, careless fraud. Sting operations can overcome these limitations and controversies, but are not feasible in many situations. Data management practices that are effective at preventing researcher fraud and unintentional errors are well-established in clinical trials regulated by government agencies, but appear to be largely unknown or unimplemented in most academic research. Established data management practices include: archiving secure copies of the raw data, audit trails, restricted access to the data and data collection processes, software validation, quality control checks, blinding, preregistration of data processing and analysis programs, and research audits that directly address fraud. Current discussions about data management in academic research focus on sharing data with little attention to practices that prevent intentional and unintentional errors. A designation or badge such as error-controlled data management could be established to indicate research that was conducted with data management practices that effectively address intentional and unintentional errors.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of thrombosis. They often need parenteral nutrition (PN) requiring intravenous access for prolonged periods. We assessed the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and tunneled catheters for patients with IBD receiving home PN (HPN). METHODS: Using the Cleveland Clinic HPN Registry, we retrospectively studied a cohort of adults with IBD who received HPN between June 30, 2019 and January 1, 2023. We collected demographics, catheter type, and catheter-associated DVT (CADVT) data. We performed descriptive statistics and Poisson tests to compare CADVT rates among parameters of interest. We generated Kaplan-Meier graphs to illustrate longevity of CADVT-free survival and a Cox proportional hazard model to calculate the hazard ratio associated with CADVT. RESULTS: We collected data on 407 patients, of which, 276 (68%) received tunneled catheters and 131 (32%) received PICCs as their initial catheter. There were 17 CADVTs with an overall rate of 0.08 per 1000 catheter days, whereas individual rates of DVT for PICCs and tunneled catheters were 0.16 and 0.05 per 1000 catheter days, respectively (P = 0.03). After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity, CADVT risk was significantly higher for PICCs compared with tunneled catheters, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.962 (95% CI=1.140-7.698; P = 0.025) and adjusted incidence rate ratio of 3.66 (95% CI=2.637-4.696; P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that CADVT risk is nearly three times higher with PICCs compared with tunneled catheters. We recommend tunneled catheter placement for patients with IBD who require HPN infusion greater than 30 days.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A systematic review of the literature on restoration of competence to stand trial identified a predominance of retrospective case studies using descriptive and correlational statistics. Guided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality metrics and emphasizing study design, sample size, and statistical methods, the authors categorized a large majority of studies as fair in quality, underscoring the need for controlled designs, larger representative samples, and more sophisticated statistical analyses. Implications for the state of forensic research include the need to use large databases within jurisdictions and the importance of reliable methods that can be applied across jurisdictions and aggregated for meta-analysis. More sophisticated research methods can be advanced in forensic fellowship training where coordinated projects and curricula can encourage systematic approaches to forensic research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Family medicine, vital for patient care but underfunded, prompts an evaluation of how family medicine journals endorse, require, and advocate for reporting guidelines (RGs), clinical trial, and systematic review registration. AIM: Assess endorsement and requirement of RGs, and the stance on clinical trial and systematic review registration in family medicine journals, impacting research quality and transparency. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of 43 "Family Practice" journals, identified through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore. Editors-in-Chief were contacted to confirm article types. Data extracted from "instructions to authors" pages focused on RG recommendations, requirements, and trial registration. METHOD: To ensure confidentiality and prevent bias, authors independently extracted data on RG utilisation, adherence, and clinical trial registration provide a overview of research standards. RESULTS: Of 43 journals, the most recommended guidelines were CONSORT (69%), PRISMA (58%), and STROBE (60%). The most required were PRISMA (16%) and CONSORT (11%). Clinical trial registration was recommended or required by 67% of journals. Additionally, 40 out of the 43 (93%) journals cited at least one reporting guideline in their instructions to authors. CONCLUSION: Family medicine journals exhibit varied endorsement and requirement patterns for RGs and clinical trial registration. While guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE are acknowledged, caution is needed in presuming a direct link to enhanced research quality. A nuanced approach, promoting diverse reporting guidelines and rigorous study registration, is essential for elevating transparency and advancing research standards in family medicine.

RESUMEN

This review article delves into the details of the 3R-Refinement principles as a vital framework for ethically sound rodent research laboratory. It highlights the core objective of the refinement protocol, namely, to enhance the well-being of laboratory animals while simultaneously improving the scientific validity of research outcomes. Through an exploration of key components of the refinement principles, the article outlines how these ethics should be implemented at various stages of animal experiments. It emphasizes the significance of enriched housing environments that reduce stress and encourage natural behaviors, non-restraint methods in handling and training, refined dosing and sampling techniques that prioritize animal comfort, the critical role of optimal pain management and the importance of regular animal welfare assessment in maintaining the rodents well-being. Additionally, the advantages of collaboration with animal care and ethics committees are also mentioned. The other half of the article explains the extensive benefits of the 3R-Refinement protocol such as heightened animal welfare, enhanced research quality, reduced variability, and positive feedback from researchers and animal care staff. Furthermore, it addresses avenues for promoting the adoption of the protocol, such as disseminating best practices, conducting training programs, and engaging with regulatory bodies. Overall, this article highlights the significance of 3R-Refinement protocol in aligning scientific advancement with ethical considerations along with shaping a more compassionate and responsible future for animal research.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: . This study investigated the associations between the number of authors and collective self-citations versus citations by others. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: . We analyzed 88,594 health science articles published in 2015 and citations they received until 2020. The main variables were the number of authors, the number of citations by co-authors (collective self-citations), and the number of citations by others. RESULTS: . The number of authors correlated more strongly with the number of citations by co-authors than with citations by others (Spearman r 0.31 vs. 0.23; mutually adjusted r 0.26 vs. 0.12). The percentage of self-citations among all citations was 10.6% for single-authored articles, and increased gradually with the number of authors to 34.8% for ≥ 50 authors. Collective self-citations increased the proportion of articles reaching or exceeding 30 total citations by 0.7% for single-authored articles, but by 11.6% for articles written by ≥ 50 authors. CONCLUSIONS: . If citations by others reflect scientific utility, then another mechanism must explain the excess of collective self-citations observed for multi-authored articles. The results support the hypothesis that the authors' own motivations explain this excess. The evaluation of scientific utility should also be based on citations by others, excluding collective self-citations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The conduct of molecular and laboratory animal circadian rhythm research has increased exponentially in the past few decades, such that today investigations are being performed by scientists of many diverse disciplines. Knowledge gained from past works is now being explored for translational applications to clinical medicine, often termed "circadian medicine," through the implementation of patient trials. However, these trials are being led, more often than not, by investigators who have little or no formal training and in-depth expertise in the methods of human circadian rhythm research, causing them to be deficient in design and produce dubious findings that have already led to unnecessary medical controversy at the expense of advances in patient care. Evidence of the very significant shortcomings of today's translational circadian medicine research is exemplified in two recent publications in well-read reputable medical journals concerning the chronotherapy of blood pressure (BP) medications: one a review and meta-analysis by Maqsood et al. published in the journal Hypertension in 2023 that pertains to ingestion-time differences in the extent of BP reduction exerted by hypertensive medications and the other a report by Mackenzie et al. in the journal Lancet in 2022 that details the results of the pragmatic TIME study that assessed ingestion-time differences in cardiovascular disease outcomes. Herein, we appraise the inaccurate trial selection, lack of quality assessment, and the numerous other shortcomings that culminated in suspect findings and faulty conclusions of the former, as well as the deficiencies in design and conduct of the latter using as reference the eight items identified in 2021 by a working committee of the International Society for Chronobiology and American Association for Medical Chronobiology and Chronotherapeutics as being necessary for high-quality research of circadian rhythm-dependencies of the therapeutic effects of BP-lowering medications. The TIME study when rated for its quality according to the extent to which its investigational methods satisfy all of the eight recommended items attains a very low overall score of + 1 out of a possible range of -1 to + 7. Moreover, our review of the methods of the currently ongoing pragmatic BedMed trial discloses major deficiencies of the same sort rending a poor quality score of + 0.5. Although the focus of this article is the appraisal of the quality of contemporary circadian medicine hypertension chronotherapy research, it additionally exposes the inadequacies and dubious quality of the critique of such manuscripts submitted for publication to influential journals, in that some peer reviewers might also be deficient in the knowledge required to properly rate their merit.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The International Intestinal Failure Registry (IIFR) is an international consortium to study intestinal failure (IF) outcomes in a large contemporary pediatric cohort. We aimed to identify predictors of early (1-year) enteral autonomy. METHODS: We included IIFR pilot phase patients. IF was defined by a parenteral nutrition need for at least 60 days due to a primary gastrointestinal etiology. The primary outcome was time to enteral autonomy achievement. We built a mixed-effects Weibull accelerated failure time model with random effects by center to analyze variables associated with enteral autonomy achievement with a primary outcome of time ratio (TR). RESULTS: We included 189 patients (82% with short bowel syndrome) representing 11 international centers. Cumulative incidence of early enteral autonomy was 51.6%, and death was 6.5%. In multivariable analysis, ostomy presence (TR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.41-4.90) was associated with increased time to enteral autonomy achievement, and Asian/Indian (TR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.81) and Pacific Islander race (TR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.90) were associated with decreased time to enteral autonomy achievement. In a second model in the subset with measured percentage of bowel length remaining, ostomy presence (TR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.90-9.33) was associated with increased time to enteral autonomy achievement, whereas greater percentage of bowel remaining (TR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) was associated with decreased time to enteral autonomy achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Minimizing bowel resection at initial surgery and establishing bowel continuity by ostomy reversal can effectively decrease the time to early enteral autonomy achievement in children with IF.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Public health research plays a critical role in strengthening health systems and improving their performance and impact. However, scholarly production in public health coming from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) remains well below the world average and lacks a tangible growth trend over time. During the seventh Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network Regional Conference, a roundtable session brought together a panel of public health experts representing Global Health Development/Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network affiliates, universities or academia, and research institutions from the region, where they shared insights on the current situation of public health research; challenges and barriers to research facing the different countries in the EMR and the region in general; and how research agendas, productivity, and quality can be supported through strengthening research capacity in the region. Although the region is diverse in terms of health system capacity and socioeconomic development, several common challenges were identified, including a lack of strategic prioritization to guide health research, insufficient funding, ineffective transfer of knowledge to policy and practice, limited availability of research facilities, and limited national and international research collaboration. Occupied countries and countries in a state of conflict, such as Palestine, face additional barriers, such as personal and social security, lack of control of borders and natural resources, travel and movement restrictions, and confidentiality challenges because of the continuing war conditions and occupation. However, there have been success stories in the EMR regarding research publications and their positive and effective impact on policy and decision-makers. To improve research resilience and public health care in the region, a collaborative approach involving institutions, policymakers, and relevant stakeholders is critical.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. METHODS: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. RESULTS: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. CONCLUSION: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production-including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research-to study, adapt, and apply.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinical research associates (CRAs) monitor the progress of a trial, verify the data collected, and ensure that the trial is carried out and reported in accordance with the trial protocol, standard operating procedures, and relevant laws and regulations. In response to monitoring challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, Peking University Cancer Hospital launched a remote monitoring system and established a monitoring model, combining on-site and remote monitoring of clinical trials. Considering the increasing digitization of clinical trials, it is important to determine the optimal monitoring model for the general benefit of centers conducting clinical trials worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We sought to summarize our practical experience of a hybrid model of remote and on-site monitoring of clinical trials and provide guidance for clinical trial monitoring management. METHODS: We evaluated 201 trials conducted by our hospital that used on-site monitoring alone or a hybrid monitoring model, of which 91 trials used on-site monitoring alone (arm A) and 110 used a hybrid model of remote and on-site monitoring (arm B). We reviewed trial monitoring reports from June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022, and used a customized questionnaire to collect and compare the following information: monitoring cost of trials in the 2 models as a sum of the CRAs' transportation (eg, taxi fare and air fare), accommodation, and meal costs; differences in monitoring frequency; the number of monitored documents; and monitoring duration. RESULTS: From June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022, a total of 320 CRAs representing 201 sponsors used the remote monitoring system for source data review and the verification of data from 3299 patients in 320 trials. Arm A trials were monitored 728 times and arm B trials were monitored 849 times. The hybrid model in arm B had 52.9% (449/849) remote visits and 48.1% (409/849) on-site visits. The number of patients' visits that could be reviewed in the hybrid monitoring model increased by 34% (4.70/13.80; P=.004) compared with that in the traditional model, whereas the duration of monitoring decreased by 13.8% (3.96/28.61; P=.03) and the total cost of monitoring decreased by 46.2% (CNY ¥188.74/408.80; P<.001). These differences were shown by nonparametric testing to be statistically significant (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid monitoring model can ensure timely detection of monitoring issues, improve monitoring efficiency, and reduce the cost of clinical trials and should therefore be applied more broadly in future clinical studies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous jejunal enteral access can be obtained with percutaneous endoscopic gastric jejunostomy (PEGJ) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) tubes. PEGJ may not be feasible in patients with previous gastric resection (PGR) and DPEJ may be the only option. Our aim is to determine if DPEJ tubes can be placed successfully in patients with history of gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and if success rates are comparable to DPEJ or PEGJ in those without prior GI surgery. METHODS: We reviewed all tube placements performed from 2010 to present. Procedures were performed using a pediatric colonoscope. Previous upper GI surgery was defined as PGR or esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. Adverse events (AEs) were graded per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. Mild events included unplanned medical consultation or hospitalization <3 days, and moderate events included repeat endoscopy without surgical intervention. RESULTS: Successful placement rates were high regardless of GI surgical history. Patients receiving a DPEJ with a history of GI surgery were significantly less likely to experience an AE compared with those receiving DPEJ with no history and compared with PEGJ patients with or without a history. CONCLUSIONS: DPEJ placement in patients with previous upper GI surgery has very high success rate. It is associated with lower AE rates than patients receiving DPEJ without previous gastric surgery, or PEGJ regardless of previous gastric surgery. Patients with a history of upper GI surgery requiring enteral access may benefit from DPEJ over PEGJ placement considering its very high success rate and lower incidence of AEs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices. METHODS: Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices. RESULTS: Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known. CONCLUSIONS: Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

RESUMEN

To explore rational measures to improve medical undergraduates' scientific research quality by investigating and analyzing their scientific research situation. A questionnaire survey was conducted in March 2022 among medical college/university undergraduates across four grades and five majors. Five hundred and ninety-four questionnaires were distributed, and 553 valid copies were returned, with a 93.1% return rate. The results showed that 61.5% of the students had an intense interest in research experiments, and 46.8% thought it was important for undergraduates to participate in research experiments, but only 17.5% often participated in them. Among the students, 85.0% thought that the main factors preventing them from participating in research experiments were academic stress and insufficient time, and 82.6% hoped that mentors would focus on practical skills training; only 13.0% read literature at least once per week, and 93.5% were not proficient at organizing and using literature. Among the participating undergraduates, more than half were strongly interested in scientific research, but academic stress, unclear participation modes, and insufficient literature retrieval skills limited undergraduate scientific research practice and improvement of scientific quality. Therefore, it is essential to cultivate undergraduates' interest in scientific research, ensure that they have spare time to engage in scientific research, improve the undergraduate scientific research mentorship system, and enhance relevant scientific research abilities to cultivate more innovative talent in scientific research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Data sharing is an important part of open science (OS), and more and more institutions and journals have been enforcing open data (OD) policies. OD is advocated to help increase academic influences and promote scientific discovery and development, but such a proposition has not been elaborated on well. This study explores the nuanced effects of the OD policies on the citation pattern of articles by using the case of Chinese economics journals. China Industrial Economics (CIE) is the first and only Chinese social science journal so far to adopt a compulsory OD policy, requiring all published articles to share original data and processing codes. We use the article-level data and difference-in-differences (DID) approach to compare the citation performance of articles published in CIE and 36 comparable journals. Firstly, we find that the OD policy quickly increased the number of citations, and each article on average received 0.25, 1.19, 0.86, and 0.44 more citations in the first four years after publication respectively. Furthermore, we also found that the citation benefit of the OD policy rapidly decreased over time, and even became negative in the fifth year after publication. In conclusion, this changing citation pattern suggests that an OD policy can be double edged sword, which can quickly increase citation performance but simultaneously accelerate the aging of articles. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8.

RESUMEN

Medical care must be supported by research that meets reliable, valid, ethical, and reproducible principles. However, an essential fraction of research carried out in the medical field is inadequately reported due to omitting relevant information when it is published. This reduces their impact and the possibility that other researchers can realize critical appraisal, thereby compromising their application within medical practice. Because of this, guidelines have been developed to reduce this problem; their purpose is to increase research reports' methodological quality, transparency, validity, and reliability. Despite their importance, incorporating these guidelines in various journals and the knowledge and use by a significant part of the medical community is limited. In this context, this article aims to synthesize the main guidelines for reporting research in medicine.

La atención médica debe estar sustentada en investigaciones que cumplan principios confiables, válidos, éticos y reproducibles; sin embargo, una parte importante de las investigaciones realizadas en el campo médico son reportadas de manera inadecuada debido a que omiten información de trascendencia cuando son publicadas, lo cual disminuye su impacto y la posibilidad de que otros investigadores puedan evaluarlas de manera crítica y objetiva, comprometiendo con ello su aplicación dentro de la práctica médica. En un esfuerzo por atenuar este problema se han desarrollado guías cuya finalidad es incrementar la calidad metodológica, la transparencia, la validez y la fiabilidad de los reportes de investigación. No obstante su importancia, la incorporación de estas guías en diversas revistas, así como su conocimiento y utilización por una parte importante de la comunidad médica, son limitados. Dado este contexto, el objetivo del presente artículo es sintetizar las principales guías que existen para reportar investigaciones en medicina.

Asunto(s)