bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–12–01
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Don't let watermarks stigmatize AI-generated research content.
  2. An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.
  3. Act now to stop millions of research papers from disappearing.
  4. The importance of authorship integrity in scientific publications within healthcare and hospital pharmacy.
  5. Research misconduct: Use of generative artificial intelligence in writing may lower the threshold.
  6. ChatGPT in medical writing: A game-changer or a gimmick?
  7. Seductive emails, dangerous consequences: how predatory journals, conferences, and publishers target early-career researchers.
  8. Global insights: ChatGPT's influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies.
  9. Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training.
  10. The incentive for innovation and the scientific journals: Could there be conflicts of interest?
  11. Transparency: Disclosure of Financial Interests.
  12. The BMJ will remunerate patient and public reviewers.
  13. A call for civility in peer review.
  14. Constructive Critics: Development's approach to peer review.
  15. The Road from Abstract to Publication in Pediatric Urology.
  16. Promoting equity in medical research: ensuring access to publishing opportunities for researchers in Syria and Palestine.
  17. Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.
  18. Key challenges in epidemiology: Embracing open science.
  19. [Five myths about open science].
  20. Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?
  21. Data sharing and re-use as a moral imperative in animal research.
  22. Open access and data sharing in cancer stem cells research.
  23. Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study.
  1. Nature. 2024 Nov;635(8040): 815
    Don't let watermarks stigmatize AI-generated research content.
    Natalia Tsybuliak, Yana Suchikova.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Machine learning; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03869-2
  2. F1000Res. 2024 ;13 6
    An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.
    Jeremy Y Ng, Valerie Chow, Lucas J Santoro, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher.
       Background: Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not optimal. Understanding researchers' opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers' attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers.
    Methods: Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting.
    Results: The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously posted one. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors' visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints.
    Conclusions: Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to improve researchers' attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.
    Keywords:  biomedicine; open science; open science practices; preprinting; preprints; researchers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143013.2
  3. Nature. 2024 Nov;635(8040): 785-786
    Act now to stop millions of research papers from disappearing.
      
    Keywords:  Information technology; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03842-z
  4. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2024 Nov 27. pii: ejhpharm-2024-004409. [Epub ahead of print]
    The importance of authorship integrity in scientific publications within healthcare and hospital pharmacy.
    Eleonora Castellana.
      
    Keywords:  CLINICAL MEDICINE; Education Department, Hospital; Ethical Review; Ethics, Pharmacy; PUBLIC HEALTH
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2024-004409
  5. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024 Nov 26. pii: S0301-2115(24)00650-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Research misconduct: Use of generative artificial intelligence in writing may lower the threshold.
    Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.11.038
  6. Perspect Clin Res. 2024 Oct-Dec;15(4):15(4): 165-171
    ChatGPT in medical writing: A game-changer or a gimmick?
    Shital Sarah Ahaley, Ankita Pandey, Simran Kaur Juneja, Tanvi Suhane Gupta, Sujatha Vijayakumar.
      OpenAI's ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a chatbot that answers questions and performs writing tasks in a conversational tone. Within months of release, multiple sectors are contemplating the varied applications of this chatbot, including medicine, education, and research, all of which are involved in medical communication and scientific publishing. Medical writers and academics use several artificial intelligence (AI) tools and software for research, literature survey, data analyses, referencing, and writing. There are benefits of using different AI tools in medical writing. However, using chatbots for medical communications pose some major concerns such as potential inaccuracies, data bias, security, and ethical issues. Perceived incorrect notions also limit their use. Moreover, ChatGPT can also be challenging if used incorrectly and for irrelevant tasks. If used appropriately, ChatGPT will not only upgrade the knowledge of the medical writer but also save time and energy that could be directed toward more creative and analytical areas requiring expert skill sets. This review introduces chatbots, outlines the progress in ChatGPT research, elaborates the potential uses of ChatGPT in medical communications along with its challenges and limitations, and proposes future research perspectives. It aims to provide guidance for doctors, researchers, and medical writers on the uses of ChatGPT in medical communications.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer; chatbot; medical writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_167_23
  7. Postgrad Med J. 2024 Nov 25. pii: qgae167. [Epub ahead of print]
    Seductive emails, dangerous consequences: how predatory journals, conferences, and publishers target early-career researchers.
    Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar.
       BACKGROUND: In recent years, early-career researchers and medical students have become targets of predatory publishers and conference organizers. These groups exploit the pressure to publish and gain recognition. They often offer tempting opportunities, such as fast publication, free travel, and prestigious positions. However, these offers often hide a profit-driven agenda. They lack academic integrity. Many of these events have little or no peer review. The impact metrics they claim are often inflated, and event details are vague.
    OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to highlight the rise of predatory journals and conferences. It focuses on the harmful effects these organizations have on young researchers. We will identify the tactics they use. We will also point out key red flags. The goal is to help researchers, particularly medical students, understand how to navigate academic publishing and protect their careers.
    CONCLUSION: Predatory publishers and conferences pose a growing threat to academic integrity. Young researchers are especially vulnerable to these deceptive practices. It is important for academics to recognize warning signs. They should focus on quality over quantity when publishing. Educating the next generation of researchers is essential for preserving academic credibility.
    Keywords:  education and training; ethics; medical education & training; medical ethics; medical journalism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae167
  8. Front Res Metr Anal. 2024 ;9 1486832
    Global insights: ChatGPT's influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies.
    Muhammad Abid Malik, Amjad Islam Amjad, Sarfraz Aslam, Abdulnaser Fakhrou.
       Introduction: The current study explored the influence of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) on the concepts, parameters, policies, and practices of creativity and plagiarism in academic and research writing.
    Methods: Data were collected from 10 researchers from 10 different countries (Australia, China, the UK, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turkiye) using semi-structured interviews. NVivo was employed for data analysis.
    Results: Based on the responses, five themes about the influence of ChatGPT on academic and research writing were generated, i.e., opportunity, human assistance, thought-provoking, time-saving, and negative attitude. Although the researchers were mostly positive about it, some feared it would degrade their writing skills and lead to plagiarism. Many of them believed that ChatGPT would redefine the concepts, parameters, and practices of creativity and plagiarism.
    Discussion: Creativity may no longer be restricted to the ability to write, but also to use ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs) to write creatively. Some suggested that machine-generated text might be accepted as the new norm; however, using it without proper acknowledgment would be considered plagiarism. The researchers recommended allowing ChatGPT for academic and research writing; however, they strongly advised it to be regulated with limited use and proper acknowledgment.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; academic writing; artificial intelligence; creativity; plagiarism; policy recommendations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1486832
  9. Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Nov 28. 30(6): 58
    Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training.
    Omar F Khabour, Karem H Alzoubi, Wesal M Aldarabseh.
      The use of the open publishing is expected to be the dominant model in the future. However, along with the use of this model, predatory journals are increasingly appearing. In the current study, the awareness of researchers in Jordan about predatory journals and the strategies utilized to avoid them was investigated. The study included 558 researchers from Jordan. A total of 34.0% of the participants reported a high ability to identify predatory journals, while 27.0% reported a low ability to identify predatory journals. Most participants (64.0%) apply "Think. Check. Submit." strategy to avoid predatory journals. However, 11.9% of the sample reported being a victim of a predatory journal. Multinomial regression analysis showed gender, number of publications, using Beall's list of predatory journals, and applying "Think. Check. Submit." strategy were predictors of the high ability to identify predatory journals. Participants reported using databases such as Scopus, Clarivate, membership in the publishing ethics committee, and DOAJ to validate the journal before publication. Finally, most participants (88.4%) agreed to attend a training module on how to identify predatory journals. In conclusion, Jordanian researchers use valid strategies to avoid predatory journals. Implementing a training module may enhance researchers' ability to identify predatory journals.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Jordan; MENA; Open access; Predatory journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00519-8
  10. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2024 ;pii: S0004-27492025000200100. [Epub ahead of print]88(2):
    The incentive for innovation and the scientific journals: Could there be conflicts of interest?
    Newton Kara-Junior.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-1014
  11. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2024 Dec;pii: S0890-8567(24)01880-X. [Epub ahead of print]63(12): 1266-1269
    Transparency: Disclosure of Financial Interests.
      In keeping with the Journal's policies,1 we provide a listing of disclosures for all members of the editorial masthead and the ad hoc and guest editors (marked with an asterisk) as of September 15, 2024. This list, based on annually updated signed statements on file in the editorial office, includes all biomedical financial interests and potential conflicts of interest disclosed for the previous 36 months and the foreseeable future.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2024.09.005
  12. BMJ. 2024 Nov 28. 387 q2581
    The BMJ will remunerate patient and public reviewers.
    Emma Doble, Sara Schroter, Amy Price, Kamran Abbasi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2581
  13. Sleep Health. 2024 Nov 28. pii: S2352-7218(24)00232-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    A call for civility in peer review.
    Ariel A Williamson, Meredith L Wallace, Amanda M Applegate, Orfeu M Buxton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2024.10.004
  14. Development. 2024 Dec 01. pii: dev204523. [Epub ahead of print]151(23):
    Constructive Critics: Development's approach to peer review.
    James Briscoe, Katherine Brown.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.204523
  15. Urology. 2024 Nov 26. pii: S0090-4295(24)01087-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Road from Abstract to Publication in Pediatric Urology.
    Katelyn A Spencer, Brittany Levy, Regan Martin, Haley Copeland, Will Cranford, Christopher McLouth, Amanda F Buchanan.
       OBJECTIVE: To identify the current rate of achieving publication and time to publication of abstracts presented at Societies for Pediatric Urology (SPU) meetings.
    METHODS: Fall SPU poster and podium presentations from 2017 - 2019 and 2021 were identified and reviewed for authorship (academic position), institutional (presence of pediatric urology fellowship), and publication (date of publication, journal, impact factor, and changes in authorship) details.
    RESULTS: Of the 688 abstracts presented at the annual fall SPU meeting, 311 (45.2%) were published, with an average time to publication of 12.3 months (standard deviation 10.8 months). The academic position of first authors was distributed among medical students (7.5%), residents (20.2%), fellows (28.5%), attendings (28.8%), and others (PhD, RN, etc.) (15%), while last authorship was dominated by attending physicians (90.2%). There were no significant author or institutional factors associated with achieving publication or time to publication. However, abstracts presented in 2021, after the cancelled 2020 meeting, were published in an average of 6.7 months, compared to 14.6 months from 2017-2019 (p < 0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: While the annual SPU meeting is an important venue for presenting new information, the follow-through to publication is an area for improvement, which may limit dissemination of important new research. It does not appear that any author-specific factors or the affiliation with a fellowship program is associated with ultimate publication of presented abstracts.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.11.040
  16. BMC Med Educ. 2024 Nov 26. 24(1): 1371
    Promoting equity in medical research: ensuring access to publishing opportunities for researchers in Syria and Palestine.
    Hamdah Hanifa, Alhareth M Amro.
      In the face of ongoing conflicts and economic instability, researchers in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in regions like Syria and Palestine, grapple with significant financial barriers to publishing their work. These challenges not only hinder the dissemination of critical medical research but also impede the advancement of medical education. The exorbitant costs associated with publishing in prestigious journals, coupled with limited financial support, create an environment where groundbreaking research often remains inaccessible. This comment utilizes a review of the literature and researcher observations to explore the profound impact of these financial obstacles on the progress of medical research and education, advocating for more equitable publishing practices that support researchers in conflict-stricken regions.
    Keywords:  Conflict zones; Economic impact; Healthcare; Publishing challenges; Scientific research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06375-1
  17. BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 27. 14(11): e086464
    Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.
    Karen Gainey, Jenna Smith, Kirsten McCaffery, Sharon Clifford, Danielle Muscat.
       BACKGROUND: Plain language summaries (PLSs) are easy-to-understand summaries of research articles that should follow principles of plain language and health literacy. PLS author instructions from health journals help guide authors on word count/PLS length, structure and the use of jargon. However, it is unclear whether published PLSs currently adhere to author instructions.
    OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine (1) the degree of compliance of published PLSs against the PLS author instructions in health journals and (2) the extent to which PLSs meet health literacy principles.
    STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a three-part systematic environmental scan.
    METHODS: We examined 26 health journals identified from a previous review. In part 1, we assessed the inclusion frequency of PLSs in the 26 journals; in part 2, we assessed the level of compliance of PLSs with PLS author instructions; and in part 3, we conducted a health literacy assessment of the PLSs.
    RESULTS: Part 1: we found PLSs for 20/26 (76.9%) included journals. Part 2: no journal achieved 100% compliance with PLS author instructions. The highest level was 86% and the lowest was 0%. Part 3: no PLS was written at a readability level suitable for a general audience. The mean reading level was grade 15.8 (range 10.2-21.2and mean percentage of complex words, 31% (range 8.5%-49.8%).
    DISCUSSION: PLSs are an important means through which consumers can access research findings. We found a lack of compliance between PLS author instructions and PLSs published in health journals that may impede access and use by consumers. This study highlights the need for better ways to support authors adhere to PLS instructions and improved monitoring by journals.
    Keywords:  Health Education; Health Literacy; PUBLIC HEALTH; Patient-Centered Care
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086464
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Nov 26. pii: S0895-4356(24)00374-3. [Epub ahead of print] 111618
    Key challenges in epidemiology: Embracing open science.
    Edward Xu, Anna Catharina V Armond, David Moher, Kelly Cobey.
      Open science is a movement that fosters research transparency, reproducibility, and equity. Open science has been put forward by numerous stakeholders in the research ecosystem as a key science policy goal, with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) creating recommendations on open science and aligning these with UN Sustainability Goals. Open science practices are not standard to epidemiology despite their potential value to the field and especially during disease outbreaks. This article highlights core open science practices, including study registration, open data, code, and material, use of reporting guideline, open access publishing and, preprints. It aims to provide readers with the fundamentals about open science, relevant international policy for open science, and the value of implementing open science for epidemiology and society as a whole. It is a practical piece that will provide readers with a starting point to expand their understanding of open science and to identify tools to learn more. The article also highlights the challenges of open science in its implementation and the importance of monitoring open science practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111618
  19. Lakartidningen. 2024 Nov 13. pii: 24032. [Epub ahead of print]121
    [Five myths about open science].
    Christian Rück, Robin Fondberg, Lisa Gunnarsson.
      Open science aims to make research accessible to all, enhancing transparency and promoting replication. It involves practices such as open access publishing, sharing statistical code, and making non-sensitive data a available to encourage critical review, reduce errors and prevent selective reporting of favorable results. A key component of open science is preregistration, where researchers outline their hypotheses and planned analysis methods in advance, minimizing bias and promoting accountability. Despite its benefits, misconceptions about open science practices hinder its widespread adoption among researchers. Common myths include the belief that preregistration prevents any deviation from the original plan, that it only applies to clinical trials, or that it's unnecessary if data have already been collected. By challenging these misunderstandings, we can leverage open science practices to improve the integrity and quality of research.
  20. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Nov 23. 24(1): 1431
    Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?
    Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Jaisson Cenci, Bruna Brondani, Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio Cenci, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes.
       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.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Dental caries; Open access; Open science; Randomized clinical trials; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1
  21. Eur J Neurosci. 2024 Nov 25.
    Data sharing and re-use as a moral imperative in animal research.
    Ingvild E Bjerke.
      Here, I discuss data sharing and re-use as a moral imperative for research that uses animals in neuroscience. I argue that we are ethically required to make sure that we gain as much knowledge as possible from the animals we use, and that doing so involves making sure that the data from our experiment makes it into the public record of knowledge. I suggest several ways in which journals, grant bodies and policymakers can contribute to making data sharing and re-use mainstream practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16626
  22. Gac Sanit. 2024 Nov 27. pii: S0213-9111(24)00090-6. [Epub ahead of print]38 102432
    Open access and data sharing in cancer stem cells research.
    Rut Lucas-Domínguez, Antonio Vidal-Infer, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Beatriz Tarazona-Álvarez, Máxima Bolaños-Pizarro, Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo.
       OBJECTIVE: Understanding and targeting cancer stem cells (CSC) are areas of active research in oncology and further dissemination of scientific results is urgently needed to accelerate the comprehension of their involvement in tumor heterogeneity, resistance to conventional therapies and metastasis. In the context of open science, open access and data sharing, the aim of this study is to assess the current practices of cancer researchers in terms of publications and dissemination of research data.
    METHOD: A bibliometric study was conducted based on a bibliographic search using the Web of Science, and CSC articles with at least one Spanish affiliation were retrieved. A comparative study of the openness criteria of the journals was carried out, as well as an analysis of the associated data attached to the articles as supplementary material or deposited in repositories.
    RESULTS: 708 documents from 282 journals were retrieved. 303 articles contained associated research data, mostly published in Q1 journals, demonstrating a correlation between impact journals and their commitment to quality improvement. Supplementary material was the preferred method of data sharing, being pdf the most used file type. Only 69 articles mentioned datasets deposited in repositories, mainly from genomic nature. The main cancers studied were digestive and gastrointestinal, neurological, breast, hematological and respiratory, which coincided with the tumor types with the highest incidence and mortality, and in which the presence of CSC has been described.
    CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and publishers have become more aware of open science practices, but there is still a need for data quality according to the FAIR principles.
    Keywords:  Acceso abierto; Cancer stem cells; Ciencia abierta; Células madre cancerosas; Data sharing; Open access; Open science; Resistencia a terapias; Therapy resistance; Uso compartido de datos
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2024.102432
  23. J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Nov 26.
    Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study.
    Jiayi Li, Xueqian Yu, Lingyue Gao, Lijing Xin, Yan Wang, Feiyang Guo, Fang Hua.
       BACKGROUND: Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.
    OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.
    SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.
    RESULTS: As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.
    CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.
    Keywords:  dentistry; methodology; reporting guidelines; reporting quality; search strategy; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13904
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒12‒01 at 13:20.