A qualitative analysis of stakeholder experiences with Registered Reports Funding Partnerships

Background: Registered Reports (RRs) could be a way to increase the quality of scientific research and literature, such as by reducing publication bias and increasing the rigour of study designs. These potential benefits have led to Registered Report funding partnerships (RRFPs or partnerships for short) between research funders and academic journals who collaborate to encourage researchers to publish RRs. In this study we investigated the research question: “What are the experiences of the stakeholders (authors, reviewers, journal editors, funders) in the various partnership models?”. Our companion paper addresses a related, but separate, research question. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 32 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (funders, editors, authors, reviewers, matchmakers) from six partnerships. Results: Interviewees had highly variable perceptions and experiences, reflecting the complex and nuanced impacts of partnerships. We identified 6 themes: “Importance of communication with authors and reviewers”, “Influence on study design”, “Appropriateness of partners”, “Potential to reduce publication bias”, “Impact on reviewer workload”, and “Insufficient evidence”. Conclusions: This was the first investigation into these novel initiatives. We hope that our findings can benefit and shape current and future partnerships

Evaluating registered reports funding partnerships: a feasibility study

Background: We studied a novel initiative – Registered Reports Funding Partnerships (RRFPs) – whereby research funders and journals partner in order to integrate their procedures for funding applications and Registered Reports submissions into one process. We investigated the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the impact of RRFPs on (1) research quality and (2) the efficiency of the research process, from funding to publication. Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and follow-up questionnaires with stakeholders (funders, editors, authors, and reviewers) across six different RRFPs. Results: A RCT of RRFPs appears to be feasible in principle. The partnership concept seems worthwhile to pursue further and is adaptable to the needs of various funders and publishers, and across disciplines. Three primary outcomes of interest should be measurable, and participant randomisation could conceivably be done in a number of ways. In practice, however, the current volume of submissions going through existing partnerships is too low to support a full trial. Conclusions: Although a RCT of RRFPs is conceptually feasible, it will only be possible if organisations are willing to form new partnerships, scale up existing ones, and incorporate a trial (i.e., randomisation) into these partnerships

Informing drinkers:Can current UK alcohol labels be improved?

BACKGROUND: Alcohol labeling provides a relatively low-cost, population-level approach to providing information about alcohol's content and harms. METHOD: We conducted an online between-subjects experiment with two tasks to examine the impact of alcohol labels (n = 1884). In one task, participants were randomized to view one of four different unit labels (including labels currently used by the alcohol industry and novel labels which provide more information about how the number of units relates to recommended drinking guidelines). We assessed participants' accuracy of estimating weekly serving limits of alcohol. In a second task, participants were randomized to view one of eight health warnings (which varied according to message content, specificity, and framing). We assessed the motivation to quit after viewing the health warning. RESULTS: Accuracy of estimating weekly serving limits of alcohol was greater for participants who viewed novel unit labels compared to the industry standard labels. Motivation to drink less was higher amongst participants who had viewed both cancer and negatively framed messages, compared to mental health and positively framed messages. CONCLUSION: Existing unit labels used by the alcohol industry can be improved; the inclusion of unit information per serving and how these relate to low-risk drinking guidelines may be important for facilitating consumer understanding. Health warning labels should be included alongside units to provide consumers with information about the harms associated with alcohol and discourage riskier drinking behavior

Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform.

BACKGROUND Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. METHODS We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. RESULTS In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform. CONCLUSIONS The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality

Building a Systematic Online Living Evidence Summary of COVID-19 Research

Throughout the global coronavirus pandemic, we have seen an unprecedented volume of COVID-19 researchpublications. This vast body of evidence continues to grow, making it difficult for research users to keep up with the pace of evolving research findings. To enable the synthesis of this evidence for timely use by researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders, we developed an automated workflow to collect, categorise, and visualise the evidence from primary COVID-19 research studies. We trained a crowd of volunteer reviewers to annotate studies by relevance to COVID-19, study objectives, and methodological approaches. Using these human decisions, we are training machine learning classifiers and applying text-mining tools to continually categorise the findings and evaluate the quality of COVID-19 evidence

Katie Drax's Quick Files

The Quick Files feature was discontinued and it’s files were migrated into this Project on March 11, 2022. The file URL’s will still resolve properly, and the Quick Files logs are available in the Project’s Recent Activity