Abstract
Background Undisclosed discrepancies often exist between study registrations and their associated publications. Discrepancies can increase risk of bias, and when undisclosed, they disguise this increased risk of bias from readers. To remedy this issue, we developed an intervention called discrepancy review. We provided journals with peer reviewers specifically assigned to check for undisclosed discrepancies between registrations and manuscripts submitted to journals.
Objectives We aimed to (1) evaluate the feasibility of incorporating discrepancy review as a regular practice at scientific journals and the feasibility of conducting a trial on discrepancy review; (2) explore the benefits and time required to incorporate discrepancy review as a regular practice at scientific journals; and (3) refine the discrepancy review process.
Method We performed discrepancy review on 18 manuscripts submitted to Nicotine and Tobacco Research and 3 manuscripts submitted to the European Journal of Personality. We iteratively refined the discrepancy review process based on feedback from discrepancy reviewers, editors, and authors. We then assessed whether revised manuscripts addressed recommendations from discrepancy reviewers and identified potential outcome measures for use in a future trial of discrepancy review.
Results Registrations were generally too imprecise to be effectively evaluated by our original discrepancy review process so we developed a simplified, semi-structured process. Authors addressed the majority of discrepancy reviewer comments and there was no opposition to running a trial from authors, editors, or discrepancy reviewers. Clinical trial registrations were more precise but less comprehensive than registrations on the Open Science Framework, suggesting they should be evaluated in separate trials. Outcome measures for a trial of discrepancy review on clinical trial registration could include the presence of primary or secondary outcome discrepancies and whether publications that are not the primary report from a clinical trial registration are clearly described as such. Outcome measures for a trial on Open Science Framework registrations could include assessments of whether registrations are permanent, as well as an overarching subjective assessment of the impact of discrepancies.
Conclusion We found that discrepancy review could feasibly be introduced as a regular practice at journals interested in this process. A full trial of discrepancy review would be needed to evaluate its impact on reducing undisclosed discrepancies.
Competing Interest Statement
Gustav Nilsonne is a member of the Committee for Open Badges and served for several years as its chair. Charlotte Pennington is the Local Network Lead of the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) for Aston University. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
Robert Thibault is supported by a general support grant awarded to METRICS from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Sante. Robbie Clark is supported by a SWDTP ESRC PhD studentship. Tom E. Hardwicke receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 841188. Jacqueline Thompson is supported by the UK Medical Research Council and previously by Jisc. Katie Drax is supported by the John Climax Benevolent Fund. Marcus Munafo, Robert Thibault, Jacqueline Thompson, Katie Drax, and Robbie Clark are all part of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/7). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The School of Psychological Sciences Research Ethics Committee (SREC) at the University of Bristol gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The study protocol and materials were registered on 28 January 2021 at osf.io/5dh47/files. Discrepancies between this manuscript and the registered protocol are outlined in Supplementary Material A. Open data, codebooks, and the analysis script are temporarily stored at osf.io/25ebk. Upon acceptance for publication, these materials will be uploaded to the University of Bristol Research Data Repository. To maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts we reviewed and the associated authors and editors, the discrepancy reviews will not be made publicly available.
