Search

Your search keyword '"Cobey, Kelly"' showing total 378 results
Start Over Author "Cobey, Kelly"
378 results on '"Cobey, Kelly"'

2. Understanding the provenance and quality of methods is essential for responsible reuse of FAIR data

Author

Weissgerber, Tracey L., Gazda, Małgorzata Anna, Nilsonne, Gustav, ter Riet, Gerben, Cobey, Kelly D., Prieß-Buchheit, Julia, Noro, Jorge, Schulz, Robert, Tijdink, Joeri K., Bobrov, Evgeny, Bannach-Brown, Alexandra, Franzen, Delwen L., Moschini, Ugo, Naudet, Florian, Mansmann, Ulrich, Salholz-Hillel, Maia, Bandrowski, Anita, and Macleod, Malcolm R.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Author

Cooke, Steven J., Young, Nathan, Peiman, Kathryn S., Roche, Dominique G., Clements, Jeff C., Kadykalo, Andrew N., Provencher, Jennifer F., Raghavan, Rajeev, DeRosa, Maria C., Lennox, Robert J., Robinson Fayek, Aminah, Cristescu, Melania E., Murray, Stuart J., Quinn, Joanna, Cobey, Kelly D., and Browman, Howard I.

Abstract

This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to open science: An international, cross-sectional survey.

Author

Ng, Jeremy Y., Santoro, Lucas J., Cobey, Kelly D., Steel, Amie, Cramer, Holger, and Moher, David

Subjects
OPEN scholarship, RESEARCH personnel, INTEGRATIVE medicine, OPEN access publishing, ELECTRONIC journals, WORK sharing, ELECTRONIC publications
Abstract

Introduction and objective: Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. Results: The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). Conclusions: Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.

Author

Kashif Al-Ghita, Mohammed, Cobey, Kelly, Moher, David, Leeflang, Mariska M.G., Ebrahimzadeh, Sanam, Lam, Eric, Rooprai, Paul, Khalil, Ahmed Al, Islam, Nabil, Algodi, Hamza, Dawit, Haben, Adamo, Robert, Zeghal, Mahdi, and McInnes, Matthew D.F.

Subjects
*POLICY sciences, *CROSS-sectional method, *MEDICAL protocols, *PEARSON correlation (Statistics), *MATHEMATICAL variables, *DIAGNOSTIC imaging, *DATA analysis, *DESCRIPTIVE statistics, *MEMBERSHIP, *CHI-squared test, *NEWSLETTERS, *STATISTICS, *DATA analysis software, *OPEN access publishing, *LITERATURE
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P <.0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P <.0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study

Author

Kashif Al-Ghita, Mohammed, primary, Cobey, Kelly, additional, Moher, David, additional, Leeflang, Mariska M.G., additional, Ebrahimzadeh, Sanam, additional, Lam, Eric, additional, Rooprai, Paul, additional, Khalil, Ahmed Al, additional, Islam, Nabil, additional, Algodi, Hamza, additional, Dawit, Haben, additional, Adamo, Robert, additional, Zeghal, Mahdi, additional, and McInnes, Matthew D.F., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence

Author

Grudniewicz, Agnes, Moher, David, Cobey, Kelly D., Bryson, Gregory L., Cukier, Samantha, Allen, Kristiann, Ardern, Clare, Balcom, Lesley, Barros, Tiago, Berger, Monica, Ciro, Jairo Buitrago, Cugusi, Lucia, Donaldson, Michael R., Egger, Matthias, Graham, Ian D., Hodgkinson, Matt, Khan, Karim M., Mabizela, Mahlubi, Manca, Andrea, Milzow, Katrin, Mouton, Johann, Muchenje, Marvelous, Olijhoek, Tom, Ommaya, Alexander, Patwardhan, Bhushan, Poff, Deborah, Proulx, Laurie, Rodger, Marc, Severin, Anna, Strinzel, Michaela, Sylos-Labini, Mauro, Tamblyn, Robyn, van Niekerk, Marthie, Wicherts, Jelte M., and Lalu, Manoj M.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Epidemiological characteristics and prevalence rates of research reproducibility across disciplines: A scoping review of articles published in 2018-2019

Author

Cobey, Kelly D, primary, Fehlmann, Christophe A, additional, Christ Franco, Marina, additional, Ayala, Ana Patricia, additional, Sikora, Lindsey, additional, Rice, Danielle B, additional, Xu, Chenchen, additional, Ioannidis, John PA, additional, Lalu, Manoj M, additional, Ménard, Alixe, additional, Neitzel, Andrew, additional, Nguyen, Bea, additional, Tsertsvadze, Nino, additional, and Moher, David, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

27. Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review

Author

Ng, Jeremy Y., primary, Cobey, Kelly D., additional, Ahmed, Saad, additional, Chow, Valerie, additional, Maduranayagam, Sharleen G., additional, Santoro, Lucas J., additional, Sikora, Lindsey, additional, Marusic, Ana, additional, Shanahan, Daniel, additional, Townsend, Randy, additional, Ehrlich, Alan, additional, Iorio, Alfonso, additional, and Moher, David, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Personalized care of patients with heart failure: are we ready for a REWOLUTION ? Insights from two international surveys on healthcare professionals' needs and patients' perceptions

Author

Jankowska, Ewa A., primary, Liu, Peter P., additional, Cowie, Martin R., additional, Groenhart, Max, additional, Cobey, Kelly D., additional, Howlett, Jonathan, additional, Komajda, Michel, additional, Lund, Lars H., additional, Magaña Serrano, Jose Antonio, additional, Mourilhe‐Rocha, Ricardo, additional, Rosano, Giuseppe M.C., additional, Saldarriaga, Clara, additional, Schwartzmann, Pedro V., additional, Zannad, Faiez, additional, Zhang, Jian, additional, Zhang, Yuhui, additional, and Coats, Andrew J.S., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

33. Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine

Author

Cobey, Kelly D., primary, Haustein, Stefanie, additional, Brehaut, Jamie, additional, Dirnagl, Ulrich, additional, Franzen, Delwen L., additional, Hemkens, Lars G., additional, Presseau, Justin, additional, Riedel, Nico, additional, Strech, Daniel, additional, Alperin, Juan Pablo, additional, Costas, Rodrigo, additional, Sena, Emily S., additional, van Leeuwen, Thed, additional, Ardern, Clare L., additional, Bacellar, Isabel O. L., additional, Camack, Nancy, additional, Britto Correa, Marcos, additional, Buccione, Roberto, additional, Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio, additional, Fergusson, Dean A., additional, Gould van Praag, Cassandra, additional, Hoffman, Michael M., additional, Moraes Bielemann, Renata, additional, Moschini, Ugo, additional, Paschetta, Mauro, additional, Pasquale, Valentina, additional, Rac, Valeria E., additional, Roskams-Edris, Dylan, additional, Schatzl, Hermann M., additional, Stratton, Jo Anne, additional, and Moher, David, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies

Author

Lalu, Manoj M., primary, Presseau, Justin, additional, Foster, Madison K., additional, Hunniford, Victoria T., additional, Cobey, Kelly D., additional, Brehaut, Jamie C., additional, Ilkow, Carolina, additional, Montroy, Joshua, additional, Cardenas, Analyssa, additional, Sharif, Ayni, additional, Jeffers, Matthew S., additional, and Fergusson, Dean A., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009 to 2019

Author

Alayche, Mohsen, primary, Cobey, Kelly D., additional, Ng, Jeremy Y., additional, Ardern, Clare L., additional, Khan, Karim M., additional, Chan, An-Wen, additional, Chow, Ryan, additional, Masalkhi, Mouayad, additional, Ayala, Ana Patricia, additional, Ebrahimzadeh, Sanam, additional, Ghossein, Jason, additional, Alayche, Ibrahim, additional, Willis, Jessie V., additional, and Moher, David, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control, and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC)

Author

Solmi, Marco, primary, Cobey, Kelly D, additional, Moher, David, additional, Ebrahimzadeh, Sanam, additional, Dragioti, Elena, additional, Shin, Jae Il, additional, Radua, Joaquim, additional, Cortese, Samuele, additional, Shea, Beverley, additional, Veronese, Nicola, additional, Hartling, Lisa, additional, Pollock, Michelle, additional, Egger, Matthias, additional, Papatheodorou, Stefania, additional, Ioannidis, John P.A., additional, and Carvalho, Andre F., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. A Survey of Preprinting Practices Among Biomedical Researchers

Author

Ng, Jeremy, Chow, Valerie, Santoro, Lucas, Armond, Anna, Ghannad, Mona, Ebrahimzadeh, Sanam, Cobey, Kelly, and Moher, David

Abstract

In this study, we aim to explore biomedical researchers' attitudes towards preprinting, through the administration of a cross-sectional online survey. We aim to determine what factors influence biomedical researchers' opinions about publishing and viewing preprints.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Researchers’ Practices and Perceived Barriers Related to Open Science: An International Cross-Sectional Survey

Author

Moher, David, Steel, Amie, Santoro, Lucas J., Cobey, Kelly, Cramer, Holger, and Ng, Jeremy Y.

Subjects
integrative medicine, Alternative and Complementary Medicine, researcher practices, open science, Medicine and Health Sciences, cross-sectional survey, complementary and alternative medicine
Abstract

In this study, we will use a cross-sectional online survey, sent to authors who have been randomly selected from their publications in journals that contain the words “complementary”, “alternative” and/or “integrative” medicine in their titles. Our goal is to explore what are complementary, alternative, and integrative (CAIM) researchers’ practices and perceived barriers related to open science. This is a descriptive study, with no formal hypothesis and the first of its kind in the field of CAIM.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Developing an open science dashboard for biomedical institutions

Author

Ripp, Chantal, Cobey, Kelly, Haustein, Stefanie, and Armond, Anna Catharina Vieira

Subjects
Scholarly Publishing, Medicine and Health Sciences, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Library and Information Science
Abstract

A protocol for a cross-sectional validation of automation of OS practices

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

Iorio, Alfonso, Ehrlich, Alan, Cobey, Kelly, Wicherts, Jelte, Moher, David, Grudniewicz, Agnes, Ng, Jeremy Y., and Lalu, Manoj

Subjects
transparency, researcher, Medicine and Health Sciences, clinician, scholarly publishing, survey, Journal Transparency Tool, preferences, Education
Abstract

We propose to develop an automated journal transparency tool that users could employ to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and transparency policies. As we envision it, users (e.g., researchers and clinicians) could then use this data to make a more informed decision about whether or not they want to engage with the journal (e.g., read it, submit manuscripts to it, cite work published there). Here we seek to obtain user preferences for the proposed journal transparency tool from the clinician and researcher community. This tool is part of a wider initiative whereby we are using a user-centered design strategy, to obtain stakeholder preference for patients and publishers (e.g., publishers, journals, indexing services, marketing, and communication).

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Cross-disciplinary reproducibility scoping review

Author

Cobey, Kelly, Ayala, Ana, Sikora, Lindsey, Rice, Danielle, Lalu, Manoj, Moher, David, Franco, Marina, Xu, Chenchen, Tsertsvadze, Nino, Fehlmann, Christophe, Ioannidis, John, Menard, Alixe, and Nguyen, Bea

Subjects
Scoping review, Reproduciblity, Replication
Abstract

The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1. Synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is assessed. 2. To compare reproducibility estimates between different disciplines and examine predictors of reproducibility.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. User-centred design in indicator development: Involving the biomedical community in building an open science dashboard

Author

Haustein, Stefanie, Cobey, Kelly, Neylon, Cameron, Riedel, Nico, Franzen, Delwen, Alperin, Juan Pablo, Dirnagl, Ulrich, and Moher, David

Abstract

The open science practices identified will be used to inform the development of an automated open science dashboard which can be deployed by biomedical institutions to efficiently monitor adoption and educate researchers in various open science practices. The dashboard will build on previous work by our team, including theCharité Dashboard on Responsible Researchand theCurtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) Open Access Dashboard. It will be implemented using open-source code, and require no intervention, bureaucracy or reporting on the part of the researcher. By establishing what should be reported in an institutional open science dashboard through a consensus building process with relevant stakeholders, we aim to ensure the tool is appropriate to the needs of the community. This approach might also increase the chances of uptake and implementation. Our approach might also be useful to other disciplines contemplating institutional dashboards.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results