Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution

View ORCID ProfileMalcolm Robert Macleod, The NPQIP Collaborative group
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/187245
Malcolm Robert Macleod
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Malcolm Robert Macleod
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective To determine whether a change in editorial policy, including the implementation of a checklist, has been associated with improved reporting of measures which might reduce the risk of bias.

Methods The study protocol has been published at DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1964-8.

Design Observational cohort study.

Population Articles describing research in the life sciences published in Nature journals, submitted after May 1st 2013.

Intervention Mandatory completion of a checklist at the point of manuscript revision.

Comparators (1) Articles describing research in the life sciences published in Nature journals, submitted before May 2013; (2) Similar articles in other journals matched for date and topic.

Primary Outcome Change in proportion of Nature publications describing in vivo research published before and after May 2013 reporting the Landis 4 items (randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation, exclusions).

We included 448 NPG papers (223 published before May 2013, 225 after) identified by an individual hired by NPG for this specific task, working to a standard procedure; and an independent investigator used Pubmed Related Citations to identify 448 non-NPG papers with a similar topic and date of publication in other journals; and then redacted all publications for time sensitive information and journal name. Redacted manuscripts were assessed by 2 trained reviewers against a 74 item checklist, with discrepancies resolved by a third.

Results 394 NPG and 353 matching non-NPG publications described in vivo research. The number of NPG publications meeting all relevant Landis 4 criteria increased from 0/203 prior to May 2013 to 31/181 (16.4%) after (2-sample test for equality of proportions without continuity correction, X2 = 36.2, df = 1, p = 1.8 x 10-9). There was no change in the proportion of non‐ NPG publications meeting all relevant Landis 4 criteria (1/164 before, 1/189 after). There were more substantial improvements in the individual prevalences of reporting of randomisation, blinding, exclusions and sample size calculations for in vivo experiments, and less substantial improvements for in vitro experiments.

Conclusions There was a substantial improvement in the reporting of risks of bias in in vivo research in NPG journals following a change in editorial policy, to a level that to our knowledge has not been previously observed. However, there remain opportunities for further improvement.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: None declared.

  • Funding Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 12, 2017.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
Malcolm Robert Macleod, The NPQIP Collaborative group
bioRxiv 187245; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/187245
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
Malcolm Robert Macleod, The NPQIP Collaborative group
bioRxiv 187245; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/187245

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4086)
  • Biochemistry (8759)
  • Bioengineering (6479)
  • Bioinformatics (23339)
  • Biophysics (11748)
  • Cancer Biology (9148)
  • Cell Biology (13245)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7415)
  • Ecology (11369)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15086)
  • Genetics (10397)
  • Genomics (14009)
  • Immunology (9119)
  • Microbiology (22039)
  • Molecular Biology (8779)
  • Neuroscience (47357)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1420)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2482)
  • Physiology (3704)
  • Plant Biology (8049)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1431)
  • Synthetic Biology (2208)
  • Systems Biology (6015)
  • Zoology (1249)