Department of Neurosurgery, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, 123 Metro Blvd, Nutley, NJ, 07110, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, HMH-Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ, USA.
Neurosurg Rev. 2024 Oct 8;47(1):750. doi: 10.1007/s10143-024-03008-5.
Neurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.
Five open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and Acta Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.
One journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Fig. 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments. Neurosurgical Review utilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover, Neurosurgical Review significantly utilized more open science practices versus Journal of Neurosurgery (p < 0.05) and World Neurosurgery (p < 0.05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < 0.001) and systematic reviews (p < 0.001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.
Despite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing research quality in neurosurgery.
神经外科学研究是一个快速发展的领域，不断有大量研究发表。随着研究文献的增加，维持高质量标准变得越来越重要。开放科学实践提供了确保质量和透明度的工具。然而，这些实践的流行程度尚不清楚。本研究旨在调查神经外科学出版物实施开放科学实践的程度。
根据 Google Scholar，从排名前五的神经外科学期刊（《神经外科》《神经外科学杂志》《世界神经外科学》《神经外科学评论》和《神经外科学年鉴》）中，测量了五项开放科学实践（预印本、评估报告规范、发表的同行评审意见、预先注册和数据与方法的公开获取）。从 2022 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日，随机抽取 150 篇文章。两位审稿人分析了这些文章在开放科学实践中的应用情况。第三位审稿人解决了分歧。
一份期刊要求（20%），三份期刊（60%）建议使用评估报告规范。三份期刊（60%）允许预印本，五份期刊（100%）都建议或要求临床试验预先注册，但只有两份（40%）建议对系统评价进行预先注册（图 1）。五份期刊（100%）都建议或要求方法公开，但没有一份（0%）发表同行评审意见。《神经外科学评论》采用了最多的开放科学实践，每篇出版物平均采用 1.4 项开放科学实践，而其他四份期刊平均采用 0.9 项（p<0.001）。此外，《神经外科学评论》与《神经外科学杂志》（p<0.05）和《世界神经外科学》（p<0.05）相比，显著采用了更多的开放科学实践。随机对照试验（p<0.001）和系统评价（p<0.001）与观察性研究相比，显著采用了更多的开放科学实践。
尽管神经外科学期刊提倡，但开放科学实践的采用仍需改进。实施激励措施和更明确的要求可能会有所帮助。推广这些实践对于提高神经外科学的研究质量至关重要。
