Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment

The possibility and desirability of replication in the humanities

In this article, we argue that the debate on the poor reproducibility of scientific research has overlooked an entire field: replication is also possible and desirable in the humanities. So far, the debate on replicability has been carried out primarily in the biomedical, natural and social sciences. It turns out that, for a wide variety of reasons, many of which lead to selective reporting, a large proportion of studies in these fields are not replicable, sometimes as many as 70 percent. In this paper, we leave these fields mostly aside, since they have been extensively addressed in the recent literature, and turn to the humanities. First, we distinguish between replicability and replication. Subsequently, we defend the view that replication is entirely possible in the humanities: it meets all the criteria that have been identified for biomedical, natural and social science research. The uniqueness of many research objects in the humanities does not present an obstacle to this. We also explain why replication is desirable and urgently needed in the humanities. Finally, we give various practical guidelines for how replication in the humanities could be carried out, such as focusing on the replication of cornerstone studies or a random selection of published research in a sub-discipline, and opting, if possible, for a conceptual replication, so that triangulation becomes possible

The effect of a proprioceptive balance board training program for the prevention of ankle sprains - A prospective controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Ankle sprains are the most common injuries in a variety of sports. HYPOTHESIS: A proprioceptive balance board program is effective for prevention of ankle sprains in volleyball players. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective controlled study. METHODS: There were 116 male and female volleyball teams followed prospectively during the 2001-2002 season. Teams were randomized by 4 geographical regions to an intervention group (66 teams, 641 players) and control group (50 teams, 486 players). Intervention teams followed a prescribed balance board training program; control teams followed their normal training routine. The coaches recorded exposure on a weekly basis for each player. Injuries were registered by the players within 1 week after onset. RESULTS: Significantly fewer ankle sprains in the intervention group were found compared to the control group (risk difference = 0.4/1000 playing hours; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.7). A significant reduction in ankle sprain risk was found only for players with a history of ankle sprains. The incidence of overuse knee injuries for players with history of knee injury was increased in the intervention group. History of knee injury may be a contraindication for proprioceptive balance board training. CONCLUSIONS: Use of proprioceptive balance board program is effective for prevention of ankle sprain recurrences

Are preprints a problem? 5 ways to improve the quality and credibility of preprints

Preprints are research reports have that have not yet been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. They have increased rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, high profile discredited studies have led to concerns that speed has been prioritized over the quality and credibility of evidence. Joeri Tijdink, Mario Malicki, Lex Bouter and Gowri Gopalakrishna argue that all stakeholders of the science system have a responsibility in improving the quality and credibility of pre-prints. They outline 5 steps by which this can be achieved

Multifactorial intervention to reduce falls in older people at high risk of recurrent falls a randomized controlled trial

Background: Falls occur frequently in older people and strongly affect quality of life. Guidelines recommend multifactorial, targeted fall prevention. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention in older persons with a high risk of recurrent falls. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted from April 3, 2005, to July 21, 2008, at the geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital and regional general practices in the Netherlands. Of 2015 persons identified, 217 persons aged 65 years or older were selected to participate. They had a high risk of recurrent falls and no cognitive impairment and had visited the emergency department or their family physician after a fall. The geriatric assessment and intervention were aimed at reduction of fall risk factors. Primary outcome measures were time to first and second falls after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were fractures, activities of daily living, quality of life, and physical performance. Results: Within 1 year, 55 (51.9%) of the 106 intervention participants and 62 (55.9%) of the 111 usual care (control) participants fell at least once. No significant treatment effect was demonstrated for the time to first fall (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.37) or the time to second fall (1.13; 0.71-1.80). Similar results were obtained for secondary outcome measures and for perprotocol analysis. One intervention participant died vs 7 in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.21). Conclusion: This multifactorial fall-prevention program does not reduce falls in high-risk, cognitively intact older persons. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN11546541