A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018
Abstract Background Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not current...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | BMC Urology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01059-8 |
| _version_ | 1818474065913970688 |
|---|---|
| author | Shelby Rauh Bradley S. Johnson Aaron Bowers Daniel Tritz Benjamin Matthew Vassar |
| author_facet | Shelby Rauh Bradley S. Johnson Aaron Bowers Daniel Tritz Benjamin Matthew Vassar |
| author_sort | Shelby Rauh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research. Methods For this review, we sampled 300 publications in the field of urology to assess for 14 indicators of reproducibility including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and if the publication was available free to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources. Results Of the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data available for analysis of reproducibility. Of the 171 articles with empirical data to analyze, 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% provided access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies provided analysis scripts. Our review is cross-sectional in nature, including only PubMed indexed journals-published in English-and within a finite time period. Thus, our results should be interpreted in light of these considerations. Conclusion Current urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality while minimizing waste and patient risk. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:31:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5387d59104524fad84b03fe27462e7ac |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2490 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:31:34Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Urology |
| spelling | doaj.art-5387d59104524fad84b03fe27462e7ac2022-12-22T02:12:01ZengBMCBMC Urology1471-24902022-07-012211910.1186/s12894-022-01059-8A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018Shelby Rauh0Bradley S. Johnson1Aaron Bowers2Daniel Tritz3Benjamin Matthew Vassar4Oklahoma State University Center for Health SciencesOklahoma State University Center for Health SciencesOklahoma State University Center for Health SciencesOklahoma State University Center for Health SciencesOklahoma State University Center for Health SciencesAbstract Background Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research. Methods For this review, we sampled 300 publications in the field of urology to assess for 14 indicators of reproducibility including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and if the publication was available free to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources. Results Of the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data available for analysis of reproducibility. Of the 171 articles with empirical data to analyze, 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% provided access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies provided analysis scripts. Our review is cross-sectional in nature, including only PubMed indexed journals-published in English-and within a finite time period. Thus, our results should be interpreted in light of these considerations. Conclusion Current urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality while minimizing waste and patient risk.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01059-8ReproducibilityReplicabilityTransparencyUrologyUrologic research |
| spellingShingle | Shelby Rauh Bradley S. Johnson Aaron Bowers Daniel Tritz Benjamin Matthew Vassar A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 BMC Urology Reproducibility Replicability Transparency Urology Urologic research |
| title | A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| title_full | A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| title_fullStr | A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| title_full_unstemmed | A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| title_short | A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| title_sort | review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018 |
| topic | Reproducibility Replicability Transparency Urology Urologic research |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01059-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shelbyrauh areviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT bradleysjohnson areviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT aaronbowers areviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT danieltritz areviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT benjaminmatthewvassar areviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT shelbyrauh reviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT bradleysjohnson reviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT aaronbowers reviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT danieltritz reviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 AT benjaminmatthewvassar reviewofreproducibleandtransparentresearchpracticesinurologypublicationsfrom2014to2018 |