Concept: Technical communication
Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
- Published over 1 year ago
In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.
Investing in documenting your bioinformatics software well can increase its impact and save your time. To maximize the effectiveness of your documentation, we suggest following a few guidelines we propose here. We recommend providing multiple avenues for users to use your research software, including a navigable HTML interface with a quick start, useful help messages with detailed explanation and thorough examples for each feature of your software. By following these guidelines, you can assure that your hard work maximally benefits yourself and others.
ABSTRACT The publication of scientific information that derives from dual use research of concern (DURC) poses major problems for journals because it brings into conflict the benefits of free access to data and the need to prevent misuse of that information by others. Recently, a group of authors and a major scientific journal addressed the issue of publishing information on a newly discovered, highly lethal toxin that can be delivered to large populations and for which there are no available countermeasures. The journal addressed this conflict by permitting the redaction of information that is normally considered essential for publication. This action establishes a precedent for redaction of sensitive data that also provides an example of responsible scientific publishing. However, this precedent leaves many questions unanswered and suggests a need for a discussion by all stakeholders of scientific information so as to derive normative standards for the publication of DURC.
- Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
- Published over 2 years ago
Thyroid nodules are a frequent finding on neck sonography. Most nodules are benign; therefore, many nodules are biopsied to identify the small number that are malignant or require surgery for a definitive diagnosis. Since 2009, many professional societies and investigators have proposed ultrasound-based risk stratification systems to identify nodules that warrant biopsy or sonographic follow-up. Because some of these systems were founded on the BI-RADS(®) classification that is widely used in breast imaging, their authors chose to apply the acronym TI-RADS, for Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System. In 2012, the ACR convened committees to (1) provide recommendations for reporting incidental thyroid nodules, (2) develop a set of standard terms (lexicon) for ultrasound reporting, and (3) propose a TI-RADS on the basis of the lexicon. The committees published the results of the first two efforts in 2015. In this article, the authors present the ACR TI-RADS Committee’s recommendations, which provide guidance regarding management of thyroid nodules on the basis of their ultrasound appearance. The authors also describe the committee’s future directions.
In a Perspective, Gordon Schiff discusses the importance of appropriately analyzing adverse event reports.
The quality of reporting of animal studies lags behind that of human randomized controlled trials but a series of additions to the ARRIVE guidelines will help ensure that the standards are comparable.
Tuberculosis is responsible for more deaths worldwide than any other infectious disease. For anyone looking to learn more about this persistent public health threat, this conversational “frequently asked questions” style review addresses a breadth of questions. It offers a brief, somewhat opinionated, review of what is and is not known, particularly in light of how findings in the lab do or do not help inform the understanding of human tuberculosis.
The importance of respecting patients' preferences when making treatment decisions is increasingly recognized. Efficiently retrieving papers from the scientific literature reporting on the presence and nature of such preferences can help to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to create a search filter for PubMed to help retrieve evidence on patient preferences for treatment outcomes.
The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guidelines were published in 2008 to increase the completeness, precision and accuracy of published reports of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare. Since that time, the field has expanded. We asked people from the field to evaluate the Guidelines, a novel approach to a first step in revision.
Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.