Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
PLoS Biol. 2018 Nov 20;16(11):e2006930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930. eCollection 2018 Nov.
Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.
目前,人们越来越关注确保已发表科学文献的透明度和可重复性。根据对 2000 年至 2014 年期间发表的 441 篇生物医学期刊文章的先前评估,生物医学文献在重要方面缺乏透明度。在这里,我们调查了 2015 年至 2017 年期间随机抽取的 149 篇生物医学文章,确定了报告公共和/或私人资金来源以及利益冲突、分享方案和原始数据的比例,并进行了严格的独立复制和可重复性检查。我们还研究了从 PubMed 上提供的开放获取数据中可以了解到哪些关于可重复性和透明度的指标。在 149 项研究中,大多数都披露了一些有关资金(103 项,69.1%[95%置信区间,61.0%至 76.3%])或利益冲突(97 项,65.1%[56.8%至 72.6%])的信息。在 104 篇有经验数据的文章中,有 19 篇(18.3%[11.6%至 27.3%])讨论了公开可用的数据;只有一篇(1.0%[0.1%至 6.0%])包含了完整研究方案的链接。在 97 篇可能涉及使用不同数据进行复制的文章中,有 5 篇(5.2%[1.9%至 12.2%])进行了复制。尽管临床试验标识符和资金详细信息通常在 PubMed 上提供,但在没有全文文章的 PubMed Central 中,只有 2 篇讨论了全文层面的公开可用数据的文章也包含了有关 PubMed 上数据共享的信息;没有一篇文章在 PubMed 上有利益冲突声明。我们的评估表明,尽管在过去几年中,某些可重复性和透明度的关键指标有所改善,但仍有机会改善整个生物医学文献的可重复性研究实践,并使与可重复性相关的功能在 PubMed 上更易于查看。