Integrity
Best practice in the Essential Area of Integrity (Table 11) focused on
having transparent policies for researchers with respect to data sharing
and reporting guidelines, and on asking for this information on
submission. Requiring researchers to share information on their funding
sources and potential conflicts of interest, and providing these in the
published article, also ensures that reviewers and readers form a
complete assessment of the research presented. The quantitative analysis
suggested that compliance with these recommendations is good. Most
journals ask authors to declare funding (Q37: 46% R-score = 2; 43%
R-score = 3) and conflicts of interest (Q40: 40% R-score = 2; 51%
R-score = 3). Compliance on data policies is more mixed (Q22: 54%
R-score = 2; 29% R-score = 1). Even excluding journals for which
reporting guidelines are not applicable (14%), a significant number
have no policy on using such guidelines to ensure minimum requirements
for completeness.
Journals also need to direct reviewers to the sources of information
they require to ensure that the research they are peer reviewing is
completely and accurately reported. From the qualitative responses
shared, suggestions for how to do this included providing specific
questions on the reviewer report form that direct the reviewer to the
methodology used, and links to relevant reporting guidelines where
applicable. Compliance with these recommendations is low; 55% of
journals do not explain to reviewers how their contribution will be used
to make a decision (Q4:R-score = 1); 44% do not direct reviewers to
assess the methodology (Q6: R-score = 1); and 46% do not refer
reviewers to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT (Q3: R-score = 1).
There is also a need to support reviewers by explaining how their
contribution facilitates the editorial decision and how they can provide
a constructive report, for example with appropriate information in the
initial invitation email, reviewer report form and reviewer guidelines.
Journals going the extra mile also provided guidance via editorials,
newsletters and presentations. It was recognised that editors too need
guidance on their approach to peer review, for example by using a
variety of tools or approaches to ensure appropriate reviewers are
invited to peer review and that confidentiality of the peer review
process is maintained. It was recognised that editorial criteria for
consistent decision making should be discussed regularly and that new
editors could receive mentoring from more experienced editorial board
members. 48% of journals had no formal criteria for editors to make
consistent editorial decisions (Q23: R-score = 1).
If journals are committed to upholding the integrity of the research
they publish, there needs to be a means by which readers can raise
concerns. 58% of journals had some mechanism to achieve this (Q21:
R-score = 2) and 28% had good practice on this (Q21: R-score = 3).
Some of the challenges apparent in these areas were a lack of
coordinated approach, for example referring authors to reporting
guidelines, but not peer reviewers (Moher, 2018). This was also apparent
in requests for authors to provide funding sources or potential
conflicts of interest, but not sharing the information in the published
article. There was also a reluctance on the part of some journals to
risk patronising reviewers about requirements for peer review, perhaps
fearing resistance or accusations of ‘hand-holding,’ and an uncertainty
about who is responsible for providing training, with opinions divided
between the institution or publisher.