Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
The DataLab and Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, 2nd floor, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter,Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
BMC Res Notes. 2022 May 13;15(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06050-y.
Poor quality medical research causes serious harms by misleading healthcare professionals and policymakers, decreasing trust in science and medicine, and wasting public funds. Here we outline underlying problems including insufficient transparency, dysfunctional incentives, and reporting biases. We make the following recommendations to address these problems: Journals and funders should ensure authors fulfil their obligation to share detailed study protocols, analytical code, and (as far as possible) research data. Funders and journals should incentivise uptake of registered reports and establish funding pathways which integrate evaluation of funding proposals with initial peer review of registered reports. A mandatory national register of interests for all those who are involved in medical research in the UK should be established, with an expectation that individuals maintain the accuracy of their declarations and regularly update them. Funders and institutions should stop using metrics such as citations and journal's impact factor to assess research and researchers and instead evaluate based on quality, reproducibility, and societal value. Employers and non-academic training programmes for health professionals (clinicians hired for patient care, not to do research) should not select based on number of research publications. Promotions based on publication should be restricted to those hired to do research.
低质量的医学研究通过误导医疗保健专业人员和政策制定者、降低对科学和医学的信任以及浪费公共资金而造成严重危害。在这里,我们概述了一些潜在问题,包括透明度不足、激励机制失调和报告偏差。我们提出以下建议来解决这些问题:期刊和资助者应确保作者履行其分享详细研究方案、分析代码和(尽可能)研究数据的义务。资助者和期刊应鼓励采用已注册报告,并建立资助途径,将对资助提案的评估与对已注册报告的初步同行评审相结合。应在英国为所有参与医学研究的人员建立一个强制性的全国利益登记册,并期望个人保持申报的准确性并定期更新。资助者和机构应停止使用引文和期刊影响因子等指标来评估研究和研究人员,而应根据质量、可重复性和社会价值进行评估。雇主和非学术性卫生专业人员培训计划(为患者护理而不是研究雇佣的临床医生)不应根据研究出版物的数量进行选择。基于出版物的晋升应仅限于那些被雇用来做研究的人。