Search

We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was "significant." The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a "pressure to publish" with 62% of participants indicating it "always" or "very often" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Cobey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

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. 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 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. 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. 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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background Aims: Despite promising results in pre-clinical studies, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) face significant challenges in clinical translation. A scoping review by our group highlighted two key issues contributing to this gap: (i) lack of a clear and consensus definition for MSCs and (ii) under-reporting of critical parameters in MSC clinical studies. To address these issues, we conducted a modified Delphi study to establish and implement a consensus definition for MSCs and develop reporting guidelines for MSC clinical studies., Methods: A steering committee of 22 international experts, including stakeholders from different MSC research fields, participated in the three Delphi rounds. For the first round, to obtain a broad perspective, additional investigators recommended by the steering committee were invited to participate. The first two rounds consisted of online surveys, whereas the third round took the form of a virtual meeting. Participants were asked to rate a series of potential defining characteristics of MSCs and items for reporting guidelines. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of the participants rating the item in the same category of importance., Results: Eighty-seven international participants participated in the first round survey (spring 2023), 17 participants participated in the second online survey (fall 2023) and 15 participants participated in the final virtual consensus meeting (January 2024). For the MSC definition, 20 items were considered and nine reached consensus. Items included terminology (one item), cell marker expression (five items), tissue origin (one item), stemness (one item) and description of critical quality attributes (one item). For the reporting guidelines, with the 28 initial items and the additional items suggested during round 1, a total of 33 items to report were included. This included items on MSC intervention group and control (e.g., MSC product, dose and administration), MSC characteristics (e.g., MSC provenance, "fitness," viability and immune compatibility) and MSC culture conditions (e.g., oxygen environment, culture medium and use of serum)., Conclusions: By applying a Delphi method to establish a consensus definition for MSCs and reporting guidelines for MSC-based clinical trials, this work represents a significant advance in improving transparency and reproducibility in the conduct and reporting of MSC research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. All rights reserved.)

Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past 2 decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D.M. is a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. K.D.C. is co-chair of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). A.C.V.A. has no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Ng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science., Methods: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis., Results: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science., Conclusions: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics., Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based., Results: Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based., Conclusion: Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite having a crucial role in scholarly publishing, peer reviewers do not typically require any training. The purpose of this study was to conduct an international survey on the current perceptions and motivations of researchers regarding peer review training., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted of biomedical researchers. A total of 2000 corresponding authors from 100 randomly selected medical journals were invited via email. Quantitative items were reported using frequencies and percentages or means and SE, as appropriate. A thematic content analysis was conducted for qualitative items in which two researchers independently assigned codes to the responses for each written-text question, and subsequently grouped the codes into themes. A descriptive definition of each category was then created and unique themes-as well as the number and frequency of codes within each theme-were reported., Results: A total of 186 participants completed the survey of which 14 were excluded. The majority of participants indicated they were men (n = 97 of 170, 57.1%), independent researchers (n = 108 of 172, 62.8%), and primarily affiliated with an academic organization (n = 103 of 170, 62.8%). A total of 144 of 171 participants (84.2%) indicated they had never received formal training in peer review. Most participants (n = 128, 75.7%) agreed-of which 41 (32.0%) agreed strongly-that peer reviewers should receive formal training in peer review prior to acting as a peer reviewer. The most preferred training formats were online courses, online lectures, and online modules. Most respondents (n = 111 of 147, 75.5%) stated that difficulty finding and/or accessing training was a barrier to completing training in peer review., Conclusion: Despite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Willis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields., Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer., Results: Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced., Conclusions: This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest., Funding: No external funding was received for this work., Competing Interests: KC, CF, MC, AA, LS, DR, CX, JI, ML, AM, AN, BN, NT, DM No competing interests declared, (© 2023, Cobey et al.)

Background: Scholarly journals play a key role in the dissemination of research findings. However, little focus is given to the process of establishing new, credible journals and the obstacles faced in achieving this. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing recommendations for starting a biomedical scholarly journal., Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: OVID Medline + Medline in Process, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 14, 2022. A related grey literature search was conducted on March 19, 2022. Eligible sources were those published in English in any year, of any format, and that described guidance for starting a biomedical journal. Titles and abstracts of obtained sources were screened. We extracted descriptive characteristics including author name, year and country of publication, journal name, and source type, and any recommendations from the included sources discussing guidance for starting a biomedical journal. These recommendations were categorized and thematically grouped., Results: A total of 5626 unique sources were obtained. Thirty-three sources met our inclusion criteria. Most sources were blog posts (10/33; 30.30%), and only 10 sources were supported by evidence. We extracted 51 unique recommendations from these 33 sources, which we thematically classified into nine themes which were: journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting/typesetting, production, archiving/indexing/metrics, marketing/promotion, and funding., Conclusions: There is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal. The development of an evidence-based guideline may help uphold scholarly publishing quality, provide insight into obstacles new journals will face, and equip novice publishers with the tools to meet best practices., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2023 Ng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Aims: Guidelines for the management of heart failure (HF) are evolving, and increasing emphasis is placed on patient-centred care. As part of the REWOLUTION HF (REal WOrLd EdUcaTION in HF) programme, we conducted two international surveys aimed at assessing healthcare professionals' (HCPs) educational needs and patients' perspectives on the care of HF., Methods and Results: Anonymous online questionnaires co-developed by HF experts and patients assessed HCPs' educational needs (520 respondents, mostly cardiologists, in 67 countries) and patients' perceptions on HF impact and management (98 respondents in 18 countries). Among HCPs, 62.7% prioritized rapid initiation of all guideline-mandated medications over up-titration of some medications, and 87.7% always or frequently discussed treatment goals with patients. There was good agreement between HCPs and patients on key treatment goals, except for a greater emphasis on reducing hospitalizations among HCPs. The most frequently cited barriers to the provision of guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy were treatment side effects/intolerance, complex treatment regimens, low blood pressure, cost/reimbursement issues, and low estimated glomerular filtration rate. Most patients (81.6%) reported no difficulties taking medications as prescribed, although 21.4% felt they were taking too many pills. Patients wanted more information about HF and its consequences, prognosis, and treatments (70.4%, 74.5% and 76.6%, respectively). Cardiologists were the preferred source of information about HF, followed by general practitioners and HF nurses., Conclusions: These surveys provide valuable insights into HCPs' needs about personalized care for patients with HF, as well as patients' perceptions, expectations and preferences. These findings will be helpful to develop patient-centred, needs-driven quality improvement programmes., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CLA is the editor-in-chief of JOSPT (Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy). The other authors declare no conflicts., (Copyright: © 2023 Cobey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Lalu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Cannabis use among reproductive-aged Canadians is increasing, but our understanding of its impacts on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk is still evolving. Despite the availability of many web-based resources, informed decision-making and patient counseling are challenging for expectant families and providers alike., Objective: We aimed to conduct a scoping review of publicly available web-based Canadian resources to provide information on the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, and breast milk., Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), we systematically searched 8 databases between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2020, and web pages of 71 Canadian obstetrical, government, and public health organizations. We included English resources discussing the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or the exposed fetus and infant. Epidemiological characteristics, readability, and content information were extracted and summarized., Results: A total of 183 resources met our inclusion criteria. Resources included content for public audiences (163/183, 89.1%) and health care providers (HCPs; 31/183, 16.9%). The resources were authored by national-level (46/183, 25.1%), provincial or territorial (65/183, 35.5%), and regional (72/183, 39.3%) organizations. All provinces and territories had at least one resource attributed to them. The majority (125/183, 68.3%) were written at a >10 grade reading level, and a few (7/183, 3.8%) were available in languages other than English or French. The breadth of content on fertility (55/183, 30.1%), pregnancy (173/183, 94.5%), and breast milk or breastfeeding (133/183, 72.7%) varied across resources. Common themes included citing a need for more research into the effects of cannabis on reproductive health and recommending that patients avoid or discontinue cannabis use. Although resources for providers were consistent in recommending patient counseling, resources targeting the public were less likely to encourage seeking advice from HCPs (23/163, 14.1%)., Conclusions: Canadian resources consistently identify that there is no known safe amount of cannabis that can be consumed in the context of fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Areas of improvement include increasing readability and language accessibility and encouraging bidirectional communication between HCPs and patients., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045006., (©Ayni Sharif, Kira Bombay, Malia S Q Murphy, Rebecca K Murray, Lindsey Sikora, Kelly D Cobey, Daniel J Corsi. Originally published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (https://pediatrics.jmir.org), 19.10.2022.)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent, type, and severity of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in obstetrics and gynecology., Data Sources: The top five highest impact journals in obstetrics and gynecology were systematically searched for RCTs with non-significant primary outcomes published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020., Methods: Study selection and data extraction assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. The extent, type, and severity of spin was identified and reported with previously established methodology, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool independently and in duplicate. Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate the association between study characteristics, risk of bias, and spin., Results: We identified 1475 publications, of which 59 met our inclusion criteria. Articles evaluated interventions in obstetrics ( n  = 37, 63%) and gynecology ( n  = 22, 37%). Spin was not detected in 28 (47%) of the articles: Three (5%) had one, 10 (17%) had two, and 18 (31%) had greater than two occurrences of spin. Compared with articles where no spin was detected, spin was associated with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias domain pertaining to missing data ( p  < 0.05). No association was observed with the journal, funding source, number of authors, types of interventions, and whether the study involved gynecology or obstetrics., Conclusions: Spin was detected in nearly half of 1:1 parallel two-arm RCTs in obstetrics and gynecology, highlighting the need for caution in the interpretation of RCT findings, particularly when the primary outcome is nonsignificant., Competing Interests: The authors of this article have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Ryan Chow et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: Despite the nearly ubiquitous reported use of peer review among reputable medical journals, there is limited evidence to support the use of peer review to improve the quality of biomedical research and in particular, imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) research., Purpose: To evaluate whether peer review of DTA studies published by imaging journals is associated with changes in completeness of reporting, transparency for risk of bias assessment, and spin., Study Type: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Study Sample: Cross-sectional study of articles published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ), and European Radiology (EuRad) before March 31, 2020., Assessment: Initial submitted and final versions of manuscripts were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 and STARD for Abstracts guidelines, transparency of reporting for risk of bias assessment based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), and actual and potential spin using modified published criteria., Statistical Tests: Two-tailed paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for comparisons. A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant., Results: We included 84 diagnostic accuracy studies accepted by three journals between 2014 and 2020 (JMRI = 30, CARJ = 23, and EuRad = 31) of the 692 which were screened. Completeness of reporting according to STARD 2015 increased significantly between initial submissions and final accepted versions (average reported items: 16.67 vs. 17.47, change of 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.25-1.17]). No significant difference was found for the reporting of STARD for Abstracts (5.28 vs. 5.25, change of -0.03 [-0.15 to 0.11], P = 0.74), QUADAS-2 (6.08 vs. 6.11, change of 0.03 [-1.00 to 0.50], P = 0.92), actual "spin" (2.36 vs. 2.40, change of 0.04 [0.00 to 1.00], P = 0.39) or potential "spin" (2.93 vs. 2.81, change of -0.12 [-1.00 to 0.00], P = 0.23) practices., Conclusion: Peer review is associated with a marginal improvement in completeness of reporting in published imaging DTA studies, but not with improvement in transparency for risk of bias assessment or reduction in spin., Level of Evidence: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1., (© 2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Introduction: Many predatory journals fail to follow best publication practices. Studies assessing the impact of predatory journals have focused on how these articles are cited in reputable academic journals. However, it is possible that research from predatory journals is cited beyond the academic literature in policy documents and guidelines. Given that research used to inform public policy or government guidelines has the potential for widespread impact, we will examine whether predatory journals have penetrated public policy., Methods and Analysis: This is a descriptive study with no hypothesis testing. Policy documents that cite work from the known predatory publisher OMICS will be downloaded from the Overton database. Overton collects policy documents from over 1200 sources worldwide. Policy documents will be evaluated to determine how the predatory journal article is used. We will also extract epidemiological details of the policy documents, including: who funded their development, the discipline the work is relevant to and the name of the organisations producing the policy. The record of scholarly citations of the identified predatory articles will also be examined. Findings will be reported with descriptive statistics using counts and percentages., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval was required for this study since it does not involve human or animal research. Study findings will be discussed at workshops on journalology and predatory publishing and will be disseminated through preprint, peer-reviewed literature and conference presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EAA is the founder and CEO of Open Policy Limited, which creates the Overton database., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are widely used in preclinical and clinical research. Despite minimal criteria to define MSCs provided by the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), concerns have been raised about inconsistent descriptions of cell products used. To address the question "How are MSCs currently defined and characterized?" we conducted a scoping review on original MSC preclinical and clinical studies published over a 3-month period. Selected studies identified from a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase were categorized as follows: Clinical, Animal, Biology, or Biomaterial studies. Data were extracted from a randomly selected subsample of studies. We extracted information, including epidemiological characteristics of studies, study design, ISCT criteria, and MSC characterization and culture condition. A total of 1053 articles were included and among them, 318 articles were analyzed. Overall, 18% of the articles explicitly referred to the ISCT minimal criteria for MSC. MSC characteristics and culture conditions were inconstantly reported (eg, viability assay reported in only 18% of the articles). Only 20% of documents reported at least 1 functional assay. Clinical studies showed inconsistent completeness in reporting relevant information on the MSC characterization and cell manufacturing processes. These results suggest that further development and implementation of a consensus definition of MSCs and reporting guidelines are needed to enhance rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in MSC research., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Despite being more than two decades of research, mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) treatments are still struggling to cross the translational gap. Two key issues that likely contribute to these failures are (1) the lack of clear definition for MSC and (2) poor quality of reporting in MSC clinical studies. To address these issues, we propose a modified Delphi study to establish a consensus definition for MSC and reporting guidelines for clinical trials of MSC therapy., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a three-round international modified Delphi survey. Findings from a recent scoping review examining how MSCs are defined and reported in preclinical and clinical studies were used to draft the initial survey for round 1 of our Delphi. Participants will include a 'core group' of individuals as well as researchers whose work was captured in our scoping review. The core group will include stakeholders from different research fields including developmental biology, translational science, research methods, regulatory practices, scholarly journal editing and industry. The first two survey rounds will be online, and the final round will take place in person. Each participant will be asked to rate their agreement on potential MSC definition characteristics and reporting items using a Likert scale. After each round, we will analyse the data to determine which items have reached consensus for inclusion/exclusion, and then develop a revised questionnaire for any new items, or items that did not reach consensus., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval from the Ottawa Health Research Network Research Ethics Board. To support the dissemination of our findings, we will use an evidence-based 'integrated knowledge translation' approach to engage knowledge users from the inception of the research. This will allow us to develop a tailored end-of-project knowledge translation plan to support and ensure dissemination and implementation of the Delphi results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Cell-based therapies hold promise to substantially curb complications from extreme preterm birth, the main cause of death in children below the age of 5 years. Exciting preclinical studies in experimental neonatal lung injury have provided the impetus for the initiation of early phase clinical trials in extreme preterm infants at risk of developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Clinical translation of promising therapies, however, is slow and often fails. In the adult population, results of clinical trials so far have not matched the enticing preclinical data. The neonatal field has experienced many hard-earned lessons with the implementation of oxygen therapy or postnatal steroids. Here we briefly summarize the preclinical data that have permitted the initiation of early phase clinical trials of cell-based therapies in extreme preterm infants and describe the INCuBAToR concept (Innovative Neonatal Cellular Therapy for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Accelerating Translation of Research), an evidence-based approach to mitigate the risk of translating advanced therapies into this vulnerable patient population. The INCuBAToR addresses several of the shortcomings at the preclinical and the clinical stage that usually contribute to the failure of clinical translation through (a) systematic reviews of preclinical and clinical studies, (b) integrated knowledge transfer through engaging important stakeholders early on, (c) early economic evaluation to determine if a novel therapy is viable, and (d) retrospective and prospective studies to define and test ideal eligibility criteria to optimize clinical trial design. The INCuBAToR concept can be applied to any novel therapy in order to enhance the likelihood of success of clinical translation in a timely, transparent, rigorous, and evidence-based fashion., (© 2021 The Authors. STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief' perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal's operations incorporate patient partner perspectives., Results: One hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors., Conclusions: Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as "predatory", deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders' website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called "policies" (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder's open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: When this work was undertaken JMG (Trials), LAS and DM (Systematic Reviews) were Editors-in-Chief for the open access published Biomed Central, for which they received stipends’; MJP was an (unpaid) editorial board member for PLOS Medicine and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; and LS was an (unpaid) associate editor for BMC Systematic Reviews., (Copyright: © 2021 Shamseer L et al.)

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as "predatory", deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders' website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called "policies" (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder's open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: When this work was undertaken JMG (Trials), LAS and DM (Systematic Reviews) were Editors-in-Chief for the open access published Biomed Central, for which they received stipends’; MJP was an (unpaid) editorial board member for PLOS Medicine and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; and LS was an (unpaid) associate editor for BMC Systematic Reviews., (Copyright: © 2021 Shamseer L et al.)

Introduction: Cannabis use in Canada is becoming more prevalent across all demographic groups due to increases in accessibility and lowered perceptions of harm. These patterns are mirrored among women of reproductive age, including women who are pregnant. Given increasing evidence for detrimental short- and long-term impacts of cannabis exposure on fetal, newborn and child outcomes, there is a need for high-quality, accessible resources providing reliable guidance and recommendations on this topic for both the public and healthcare providers. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and characterise all publicly available online educational resources discussing cannabis use related to fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding developed by Canadian organisations., Methods and Analysis: Using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology as a guide, we will search Medline (Ovid), Medline in Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Education Source (EBSCOhost). We will also conduct a grey literature search targeting the websites of national and independent Canadian obstetrical societies and networks, and government and public health offices that provide recommendations or guidance to individuals and their healthcare providers seeking information on cannabis use related to fertility, pregnancy or breastfeeding., Ethics and Dissemination: Research ethics approval is not required for scoping review studies. We anticipate that this review's findings will be disseminated through traditional channels, including preprint and peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences. In addition, the resources and guidelines identified in the study will be gathered and made available online on a single comprehensive public repository. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/p24y5., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review., Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types., Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ 2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%))., Conclusion: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.

Objective: To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers., Design: This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals., Participants: Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1., Results: A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a 'one-stop-shop' website to consolidate information on the topic and a 'predatory journal research observatory' to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers., Conclusions: In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is evidence across a range of bi-parental species that physiological changes may occur in partnered males prior to the birth of an infant. It has been hypothesised that these hormonal changes might facilitate care-giving behaviours, which could augment infant survival. The mechanism that induces these changes has not been identified, but evidence from several species suggests that odour may play a role. The current study investigated this in humans by recording testosterone and psychological measures related to infant interest and care in men (n = 91) both before and after exposure to odours from either pregnant women or non-pregnant control women. We found no evidence for an effect of odour cues of pregnancy on psychological measures including self-reported sociosexual orientation and social dominance scores, ratings of infant or adult faces, or testosterone levels. However, we found that brief exposure to post-partum odours significantly increased the reward value of infant faces. Our study is the first to show that the odour of peri-partum women may lead to upregulation of men's interest in infants., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Irreproducibility of preclinical findings could be a significant barrier to the "bench-to-bedside" development of oncolytic viruses (OVs). A contributing factor is the incomplete and non-transparent reporting of study methodology and design. Using the NIH Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research, a core set of seven recommendations, we evaluated the completeness of reporting of preclinical OV studies. We also developed an evidence map identifying the current trends in OV research. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified all relevant articles published over an 18 month period. We screened 1,554 articles, and 236 met our a priori -defined inclusion criteria. Adenovirus (43%) was the most commonly used viral platform. Frequently investigated cancers included colorectal (14%), skin (12%), and breast (11%). Xenograft implantation (61%) in mice (96%) was the most common animal model. The use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 0.4% of articles. Biological and technical replicates were completely reported in 1% of studies, statistics in 49%, randomization in 1%, blinding in 2%, sample size estimation in 0%, and inclusion/exclusion criteria in 0%. Overall, completeness of reporting in the preclinical OV therapy literature is poor. This may hinder efforts to interpret, replicate, and ultimately translate promising preclinical OV findings.

Objectives: To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals., Design: An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences., Participants: Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory., Results: Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish., Conclusions: This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To evaluate the epidemiology of systematic reviews (SRs) published in imaging journals., Methods: A MEDLINE search identified SRs published in imaging journals from 1 January 2000-31 December 2016. Articles retrieved were screened against inclusion criteria. Demographic and methodological characteristics were extracted from studies. Temporal trends were evaluated using linear regression and Pearson's correlation coefficients., Results: 921 SRs were included that reported on 27,435 primary studies, 85,276,484 patients and were cited 26,961 times. The SR publication rate increased 23-fold (r=0.92, p<0.001) while the proportion of SRs to non-SRs increased 13-fold (r = 0.94, p<0.001) from 2000 (0.10%) to 2016 (1.33%). Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) SRs were most frequent (46.5%) followed by therapeutic SRs (16.6%). Most SRs did not report funding status (54.2%). The median author team size was five; this increased over time (r=0.20, p<0.001). Of the studies, 67.3% included an imaging specialist co-author; this decreased over time (r=-0.57, p=0.017). Most SRs included a meta-analysis (69.6%). Journal impact factor positively correlated with SR publication rates (r=0.54, p<0.001). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 'vascular and interventional radiology' were the most frequently studied imaging modality and subspecialty, respectively. The USA, UK, China, Netherlands and Canada were the top five publishing countries., Conclusions: The SR publication rate is increasing rapidly compared with the rate of growth of non-SRs; however, they still make up just over 1% of all studies. Authors, reviewers and editors should be aware of methodological and reporting standards specific to imaging systematic reviews including those for DTA and individual patient data., Key Points: • Systematic review publication rate has increased 23-fold from 2000-2016. • The proportion of systematic reviews to non-systematic reviews has increased 13-fold. • The USA, UK and China are the most frequent published countries; those from the USA and China are increasing the most rapidly.

Background: Between 1 and 5% of children in industrialized countries are conceived through Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). As infertility and the use of ART may be associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, care plans specific to these pregnancies are needed. We conducted a systematic review to examine the existing care plans specific to women pregnant following Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched by a senior information specialist. The population of interest included women becoming pregnant with ART (e.g., Intra-Uterine Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and surrogacy). All proposed care plans were sought that pertained to any aspect of care during pregnancy and delivery. Only Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing the recommendations and plans for the care of ART pregnant women were included. The search was restricted to the publication dates 2007 to June 12, 2017 when the search was run. The search was not restricted by language, however only English and French language guidelines were considered for inclusion., Results: After screening 2078 citations, a total of ten CPGs were included. The following key clinical messages were prevalent: (1) although there was no supporting evidence, antenatal care for ART pregnancies should be provided by specialist with knowledge in obstetrics; (2) high-order multiple pregnancies are the greatest risk of ART and selective reduction options should be discussed; (3) there is some evidence of increased risk of congenital abnormalities and prenatal genetic and anatomic screening is recommended, especially in IVF-ICSI pregnancies; (4) due to a lack of or conflicting evidence, treatment of venous thromboembolism, antithrombotic therapy, treatment for hypothyroidism, and women with positive thyroid antibodies is recommended to be the same as in spontaneous pregnancies; and lastly (5) since an increased level of distress is a recognized feature in these pregnancies, psychosocial care and counselling should be considered., Conclusions: There is a lack of CPGs specific to ART pregnancies. While we identified a small number of recommendations for ART pregnancies, specific interventions and models of care aiming at decreasing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Background and Purpose: Dissemination of research results is a key component of the research continuum and is commonly achieved through publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. However, issues of poor quality reporting in the research literature are well documented. A lack of formal training in journalology (i.e., publication science) may contribute to this problem. To help address this gap in training, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Canada Publication School was developed and facilitated by internationally-renowned faculty to train researchers and clinicians in reporting and publication best practices. This article describes the structure of the inaugural course and provides an overview of attendee evaluations and perspectives., Key Highlights: Attendees perceived the content of this two-day intensive course as highly informative. They noted that the course helped them learn skills that were relevant to academic publishing (e.g., using reporting guidelines in all phases of the research process; using scholarly metrics beyond the journal impact factor; open-access publication models; and engaging patients in the research process). The course provided an opportunity for researchers to share their challenges faced during the publication process and to learn skills for improving reproducibility, completeness, transparency, and dissemination of research results. There was some suggestion that this type of course should be offered and integrated into formal training and course curricula., Implications: In light of the importance of academic publishing in the scientific process, there is a need to train and prepare researchers with skills in Journalology. The EQUATOR Canada Publication School provides an example of a successful program that addressed the needs of researchers across career trajectories and provided them with resources to be successful in the publication process. This approach can be used, modified, and/or adapted by curriculum developers interested in designing similar programs, and could be incorporated into academic and clinical research training programs., Competing Interests: Jacqueline Galica1,*; jacqueline.galica@queensu.ca; ORCID: 0000–0002–3072-2472. Alyssandra Chee-a-tow2; alyssandra.chee.a.tow@mail.utoronto.ca; ORCID: 0000–0003–0220-2717. Shikha Gupta3; shikha.gupta@queensu.ca; ORCID: 0000–0002–5704-1618. Atul Jaiswal3; atul.jaiswal@queensu.ca; ORCID: 0000–0001–5700-2283. Andrea Monsour2; andrea.monsour@sickkids.ca; ORCID: 0000–0003–3870-3804. Andrea C. Tricco4,5; TriccoA@smh.ca; ORCID: 0000–0002–4114-8971. Kelly D. Cobey6,7,8; kcobey@ohri.ca; ORCID: 0000–0003–2797-1686. Nancy J. Butcher2; nancy.butcher@sickkids.ca; ORCID: 0000–0002–5152-0108.Ethics review was not required for this manuscript, as per the Research Ethics Board at the Hospital for Sick Children.Not applicable.Drs. Butcher, Tricco, and Cobey were involved in the planning and delivery of the EQUATOR Canada Publication School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd , 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th , 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd , 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th , 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Kelly Cobey is employed as the Publications Officer for the Centre for Journalology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. No other competing interests were declared.

Background: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role., Methods: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals., Results: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment., Conclusions: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

Background: Scientific editors (i.e., those who make decisions on the content and policies of a journal) have a central role in the editorial process at biomedical journals. However, very little is known about the training needs of these editors or what competencies are required to perform effectively in this role. Methods: We conducted a survey of perceptions and training needs among scientific editors from major editorial organizations around the world, followed by a modified Delphi process in which we invited the same scientific editors to rate the importance of competency-related statements obtained from a previous scoping review. Results: A total of 148 participants completed the survey of perceptions and training needs. At least 80% of participants agreed on six of the 38 skill and expertise-related statements presented to them as being important or very important to their role as scientific editors. At least 80% agreed on three of the 38 statements as necessary skills they perceived themselves as possessing (well or very well).  The top five items on participants' list of top training needs were training in statistics, research methods, publication ethics, recruiting and dealing with peer reviewers, and indexing of journals. The three rounds of the Delphi were completed by 83, 83, and 73 participants, respectively, which ultimately produced a list of 23 "highly rated" competency-related statements and another 86 "included" items. Conclusion: Both the survey and the modified Delphi process will be critical for understanding knowledge and training gaps among scientific editors when designing curriculum around core competencies in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DM is supported by a University of Ottawa Research Chair. SB and HM are part of the Cochrane Central Editorial Unit. JD leads the Cochrane Collaboration’s test evaluation activities. PG is a Coordinating Editor for the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group. MW participated in the creation and dissemination of a survey to WAME members on medical journal editor professionalism in June 2015 and in the development of a series of sessions on medical journal editor professionalism for the WAME International Conference for Medical Journal Editors in New Delhi held in October 2015. Her participation in the study described herein was independent of WAME. JG, SS, LS, KDC, PT, and PB all have no competing interests to declare. VB is Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE had no role in the paper except to distribute the survey.

Background: The scholarly publication landscape is changing rapidly. We investigated whether the introduction of an institutional publications officer might help facilitate better knowledge of publication topics and related resources, and effectively support researchers to publish., Methods: In September 2015, a purpose-built survey about researchers' knowledge and perceptions of publication practices was administered at five Ottawa area research institutions. Subsequently, we publicly announced a newly hired publications officer (KDC) who then began conducting outreach at two of the institutions. Specifically, the publications officer gave presentations, held one-to-one consultations, developed electronic newsletter content, and generated and maintained a webpage of resources. In March 2016, we re-surveyed our participants regarding their knowledge and perceptions of publishing. Mean scores to the perception questions, and the percent of correct responses to the knowledge questions, pre and post survey, were computed for each item. The difference between these means or calculated percentages was then examined across the survey measures., Results: 82 participants completed both surveys. Of this group, 29 indicated that they had exposure to the publications officer, while the remaining 53 indicated they did not. Interaction with the publications officer led to improvements in half of the knowledge items (7/14 variables). While improvements in knowledge of publishing were also found among those who reported not to have interacted with the publications officer (9/14), these effects were often smaller in magnitude. Scores for some publication knowledge variables actually decreased between the pre and post survey (3/14). Effects for researchers' perceptions of publishing increased for 5/6 variables in the group that interacted with the publications officer., Discussion: This pilot provides initial indication that, in a short timeframe, introducing an institutional publications officer may improve knowledge and perceptions surrounding publishing. This study is limited by its modest sample size and temporal relationship between the introduction of the publications officer and changes in knowledge and perceptions. A randomized trial examining the publications officer as an effective intervention is needed., Competing Interests: Kelly D. Cobey is the publications officer at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. No other competing interests exist.