Schniedermann Alexander
German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin, Germany.
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden, Netherlands.
Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 Jun 27;7:846822. doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.846822. eCollection 2022.
What is scientific quality and how can it be achieved? Recent developments in clinical biomedicine gave prominence to transparency as a new core value for scientific research. Without transparency, other characteristics and values remain unknown. But how can abstract concepts and values be implemented in day-to-day scientific practices and what gets lost on the way? In order to answer this question, this study investigates the role of the PRISMA reporting guideline for writing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. By combining a document analysis and expert interviews with its developers, it attempts to bridge the gap between research practice and current modes of evaluation. Beside showing how the guideline was designed to be applicable and acceptable as a new standard, the analysis revealed crucial distinctions between transparency as an abstract quality goal and its practical implementation in the form of specifically formulated rules. Although PRISMA relies on transparency in order to be meaningful, it blurs the concept in order to circumvent some of its main disadvantages.
什么是科学质量以及如何实现它?临床生物医学的最新发展使透明度成为科学研究的一项新的核心价值。没有透明度,其他特征和价值就仍然不为人知。但是抽象的概念和价值如何在日常科学实践中得以实施,以及在此过程中会失去什么?为了回答这个问题,本研究调查了PRISMA报告指南在撰写系统评价和荟萃分析中的作用。通过将文献分析与对该指南开发者的专家访谈相结合,它试图弥合研究实践与当前评估模式之间的差距。除了展示该指南如何被设计成作为一项新标准是适用且可接受的之外,分析还揭示了作为抽象质量目标的透明度与其以具体制定的规则形式的实际实施之间的关键区别。尽管PRISMA依赖透明度以便有意义,但它为了规避其一些主要缺点而模糊了这一概念。