Yeung Andy W K
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong KongHong Kong, Hong Kong.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Sep 20;11:468. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468. eCollection 2017.
: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. : A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. : Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications. : The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.
近期神经科学领域的报告，尤其是那些关于脑损伤和神经成像的报告，揭示了该领域内研究结果的低可重复性，并呼吁开展更多的重复研究。然而，尚不清楚神经科学期刊是欢迎还是不鼓励提交重复研究报告。因此，本研究评估了神经科学期刊对重复研究的明确立场。
从Scopus数据库中编制了一份以英文出版的活跃神经科学期刊列表。访问这些期刊的网站，阅读其目标和范围以及对作者的说明，以评估它们是否：(1) 明确表示接受重复研究；(2) 未表明其对重复研究的立场；(3) 通过强调稿件的新颖性而含蓄地不鼓励重复研究；或 (4) 明确表示拒绝重复研究。对于明确表示接受或拒绝重复研究的期刊，记录其在神经科学领域内的子类别及其5年影响因子。还通过在Scopus中搜索和提取数据，记录已发表的神经科学重复研究的分布情况。
在审查的465种期刊中，28种（6.0%）明确表示接受重复研究，394种（84.7%）未表明其对重复研究的立场，40种（8.6%）通过强调稿件的新颖性而含蓄地不鼓励重复研究，3种（0.6%）明确表示拒绝重复研究。对于28种明确欢迎重复研究的期刊，3种（10.7%）在目标和范围中表明了立场，而25种（89.3%）在对作者的详细说明中表明了立场。这些期刊的5年影响因子（2015年）范围为1.655至10.799，其中9种（32.1%）在2015年未获得5年或年度影响因子。明确欢迎重复研究的期刊比例（有影响因子与无影响因子的期刊，或高影响因子与低影响因子的期刊）没有显著差异。神经科学的所有子类别都至少有一本期刊欢迎重复研究。
报告了欢迎重复研究并发表了重复研究的神经科学期刊。这些信息可能提供有关当前期刊在重复研究方面做法的描述性信息，从而可以向期刊出版商提出基于证据的建议。
