RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.05.28.24307345
DO 10.1101/2024.05.28.24307345
A1 Ng, Jeremy Y.
A1 Liu, Henry
A1 Masood, Mehvish
A1 Kochhar, Jassimar
A1 Moher, David
A1 Ehrlich, Alan
A1 Iorio, Alfonso
A1 Cobey, Kelly D.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/29/2024.05.28.24307345.abstract
AB Background Transparency within biomedical research is essential for research integrity, credibility, and reproducibility. To increase adherence to optimal scientific practices and enhance transparency, we propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT) that will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and transparency policies. This study is part of a program of research to obtain user preferences to inform the proposed JTT. Here, we report on our consultation with clinicians and researchers.Methods This mixed-methods study was conducted in two parts. The first part involved a cross-sectional survey conducted on a random sample of authors from biomedical journals. The survey asked clinicians and researchers about the inclusion of a series of potential scholarly metrics and user features in the proposed JTT. Quantitative survey items were summarized with descriptive statistics. Thematic content analysis was employed to analyze text-based responses. Subsequent focus groups used the survey responses to further explore the inclusion of items in the JTT. Items with less than 70% agreement were used to structure discussion points during these sessions. Participants voted on the use of user features and metrics to be considered within the journal tool after each discussion. Thematic content analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify the core themes discussed.Results A total of 632 participants (5.5% response rate) took part in the survey. A collective total of 74.7% of respondents found it either ‘occasionally, ‘often’, or ‘almost always’ difficult to determine if health information online is based on reliable research evidence.Twenty-two participants took part in the focus groups. Three user features and five journal tool metrics were major discussion points during these sessions. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in six themes. The use of registration was the only item to not meet the 70% threshold after both the survey and focus groups. Participants demonstrated low scholarly communication literacy when discussing tool metric suggestions.Conclusions Our findings suggest that the JTT would be valuable for both researchers and clinicians. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with researchers and clinicians.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6EWQS Funding StatementJYN was funded by a MITACS Accelerate Industrial award which was co-funded by EBSCO Health (IT32200). This study was also funded by The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization (TOHAMO).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research ethics approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board (REB ID # 20230041-01H). The final protocol was registered using the Open Science Framework (OSF) [17] and can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AS3CYI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll relevant study materials and data are included in this manuscript or posted on the Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6EWQS APIApplication Programming InterfaceCHERRIESChecklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-SurveysCOREQConsolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative StudiesDOAJDirectory of Open Access JournalsDOIDigital Object IdentifiersJTTJournal Transparency ToolMEDLINEMedical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnlineORCIDOpen Researcher and Contributor IDOSFOpen Science FrameworkTOPTransparency and Openness Promotion