SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.

Direct Links to Author Guidelines

Objectives:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.Methods:A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014–2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.Results:The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.Conclusions:Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

In the last few years there has been an increased focus on research culture and the importance of creating a culture that is open and inclusive. This has been highlighted by the UK Government’s Research and Development People and Culture Strategy and the Concordat for the Career Development for Researchers as well as various initiatives by funders such as the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and UKRI. Within the University of Edinburgh a Research Cultures Working Group has been established and tasked with creating a Research Cultures Acton Plan for the University. I will talk about the working group and the action plan that is emerging, particularly touching on the role of recognition and reward towards creating a positive culture and how open research can contribute to that.

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in the study of interactional metadiscourse markers in different contexts. However, not much research has been conducted about the discourse of journal author guidelines, especially the use of meta-discourse markers in this genre. Therefore, this corpus-based study had three main aims: 1) to delve deep into the types, frequencies and functions of stance and engagement markers based on Fu’s (2012) interactional metadiscourse taxonomy, 2) to compare the distribution of stance and engagement features in journal author guidelines and 3) to investigate whether there is a significant difference between macro/micro interactional metadiscourse markers in journal author guidelines. A corpus of 280 author guidelines produced by seven leading international academic publishers in eight academic sub-disciplines in the humanities and social sciences was compiled and analyzed. The results of the analysis showed that engagement features (reader-oriented) enjoyed higher frequency of use in journal author guidelines. Moreover, the difference between the frequency of stance and engagement features was statistically significant. Furthermore, differences reported between macro and micro interactional metadiscourse were statistically significant. The extensive use of macro interactional metadiscourse markers indicated a high degree of interactionality of journal author guidelines. The present study gives us considerable insight into the dialogic nature of a totally neglected academic genre.

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

Research data are any information that has been collected, generated, or created to validate original research findings. This essay is focused on data produced by scholars rather than data that are collected and already accessible (e.g. open cultural heritage data). The hypothesis of the paper is that the open research data movement engages two cultures which are guided by different kinds of motives and goals: the administrative or managerial side of the institution that demands opening data and research service infrastructure and provides support in managing and opening data; and the academic researchers’ culture, in which academics collect, produce, and reuse data. One challenge is thus to reconcile institutional requirements with researchers’ motivations. The objectives of this article are to present two views on open research data from the perspective of institution and researchers, to introduce the role of a data agent as a bridge between administrative services and academics, to analyse the impact of the emerging research culture on the transformation of the humanities, and to highlight the role of the digital humanities in the establishment of this new approach. The analysis is based on a case study of Finnish open research data policy, actions, and digital humanities practices using interviews, open data sets, and reports. The open research culture in the humanities represents a move towards a processual approach, in which each research task and piece of data can be traced, validated, and reproduced. When considering the field of digital humanities, there are still a lot of challenges to be met, but, ultimately, the application of open science practices will essentially transform the entire ecosystem of humanities research.

Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines

What makes business research seemingly irrelevant outside of the closed circle of academia? This question has been discussed and debated in various forms in academic circles. Concerns such as increased relevance, access, and better communication are routinely touted as the way forward. However, these recommendations are often targeted towards researchers rather than academic journals which have strict publishing requirements. This research explores the role of academic business journals, the key means of communication between research and practice, in contributing to the research-practice divide and, hence, research irrelevance. We analysed the journal requirements and guidelines for authors of top-rated business journals from research areas including management, marketing, accounting and finance and tourism. Factors related to article structure, content, writing style, focus on theoretical and practical implications, journal subscription methods and fees, as well as journal primary target audiences and contributors, were analysed and qualitatively coded. Our analysis suggests that journal guidelines and requirements inhibit research communication to practice and, hence, contribute to business research irrelevance. We provide various recommendations as a way forward to improve the ‘rules of the game’, and develop a publishing model that will allow business research to contribute to the challenges facing our planet, societies and businesses.

Background:Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals.Materials and methods:In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures.Results:Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%).Conclusions:Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.

10 Rules I've learned from being an editor

Background The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’ Aims To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.

BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation.MethodsThe top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed.ResultsOnly 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%).ConclusionWhile the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Journal author guidelines are often the first line of communication between editors and authors, and they play a large role in determining the quality and volume of submissions received by an academic journal. Thoughtfully analyzing and designing author guidelines is crucial for research journals because it benefits both authors and editorial offices (Figure 1). As user experience (UX) researchers at Wiley, we have cumulatively analyzed feedback from thousands of authors across research disciplines about the role of author guidelines in publishing. A consistent theme that emerged was that clear, well-structured author guidelines influence how favorably authors perceive a journal and where they will ultimately submit their manuscripts. Authors tell us that among journals with similar metrics, they tend to select a journal based on the clarity of their guidelines. We also found that when authors are provided effective guidelines, it is easier for them to properly prepare their submissions the first time. For societies and publishers that encourage manuscript transfers between journals, standardized guidelines simplify the transfer process, making it easier for authors to compare requirements and choose whether to accept a transfer. Subsequently, the editorial office receives fewer requests for help, spends less time sorting through improperly prepared files, and returns fewer manuscripts for corrections. This decreases the overall time from submission to publication of the final article. We have developed strategies to enhance both the content and design of author guidelines to help editors reap these benefits. In this article, we will walk you through key steps to improve […]

Utilización de los modelos de regresión múltiple en estudios observacionales (1970-2013) y requerimiento de la guía STROBE en revistas científicas españolas

A positive working environment and culture are essential for researchers as these enable them to conduct valuable, high-quality research. Yet, university staff frequently report their research culture as less than ideal. To understand researchers’ experiences of research culture to inform tangible change, several surveys have been conducted by research-related organizations and individual universities. However, despite a plethora of studies, there does not appear to be a widely adopted research culture questionnaire, with variation in content and length in those used to date. A 37-item research culture questionnaire was developed based on the extant literatures. It was piloted in one small-medium sized university with 177 academic staff across a range of disciplines engaged in research. Qualitative questions were included to provide a richer insight into current research perceptions. Exploratory factor analysis identified eight factors, providing an initial framework of research culture. This consisted of: School Research Value, University Research Value, Research Support, Research Knowledge, Collaboration, Wellbeing & Inclusivity, Open Research and Research Integrity. Whilst it will require further testing and refinement, a preliminary psychometric analysis provides initial indications of internal structure and internal reliability. The factor set provides insight into research culture drivers which can be used to target effective interventions. This type of research culture questionnaire would allow universities to not only assess their own culture but also benchmark their results against other universities. A standardized research culture measurement process (e.g. questionnaires, narratives), feeding into research evaluation activities, may have wider implications for those looking to facilitate research culture changes.