Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

View ORCID ProfileJeremy Y. Ng, View ORCID ProfileHenry Liu, View ORCID ProfileMehvish Masood, View ORCID ProfileJassimar Kochhar, View ORCID ProfileDavid Moher, View ORCID ProfileAlan Ehrlich, View ORCID ProfileAlfonso Iorio, View ORCID ProfileKelly D. Cobey
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.28.24307345
Jeremy Y. Ng
1Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jeremy Y. Ng
  • For correspondence: ngjy2{at}mcmaster.ca jerng{at}ohri.ca
Henry Liu
1Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Henry Liu
Mehvish Masood
2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mehvish Masood
Jassimar Kochhar
2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jassimar Kochhar
David Moher
1Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
3School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David Moher
Alan Ehrlich
4EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States
5Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the UMASS Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alan Ehrlich
Alfonso Iorio
2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
6Department of Medicine, McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alfonso Iorio
Kelly D. Cobey
3School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
7University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kelly D. Cobey
  • For correspondence: ngjy2{at}mcmaster.ca jerng{at}ohri.ca
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

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 Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6EWQS

Funding Statement

JYN 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 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:

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/AS3CY

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All 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

  • List of Abbreviations

    API
    Application Programming Interface
    CHERRIES
    Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys
    COREQ
    Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies
    DOAJ
    Directory of Open Access Journals
    DOI
    Digital Object Identifiers
    JTT
    Journal Transparency Tool
    MEDLINE
    Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online
    ORCID
    Open Researcher and Contributor ID
    OSF
    Open Science Framework
    TOP
    Transparency and Openness Promotion
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted May 29, 2024.
    Download PDF
    Data/Code
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study
    Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Jassimar Kochhar, David Moher, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Kelly D. Cobey
    medRxiv 2024.05.28.24307345; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.28.24307345
    Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study
    Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Mehvish Masood, Jassimar Kochhar, David Moher, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, Kelly D. Cobey
    medRxiv 2024.05.28.24307345; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.28.24307345

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Addiction Medicine (349)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Anesthesia (181)
    • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
    • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
    • Dermatology (223)
    • Emergency Medicine (399)
    • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
    • Epidemiology (12228)
    • Forensic Medicine (10)
    • Gastroenterology (759)
    • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
    • Geriatric Medicine (387)
    • Health Economics (680)
    • Health Informatics (2657)
    • Health Policy (1005)
    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
    • Hematology (363)
    • HIV/AIDS (851)
    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
    • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
    • Medical Education (399)
    • Medical Ethics (109)
    • Nephrology (436)
    • Neurology (3882)
    • Nursing (209)
    • Nutrition (577)
    • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
    • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
    • Oncology (2030)
    • Ophthalmology (585)
    • Orthopedics (240)
    • Otolaryngology (306)
    • Pain Medicine (250)
    • Palliative Medicine (75)
    • Pathology (473)
    • Pediatrics (1115)
    • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
    • Primary Care Research (452)
    • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
    • Public and Global Health (6527)
    • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
    • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
    • Respiratory Medicine (871)
    • Rheumatology (409)
    • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
    • Sports Medicine (342)
    • Surgery (448)
    • Toxicology (53)
    • Transplantation (185)
    • Urology (165)