Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Dermatology

Date Submitted: Aug 31, 2019
Date Accepted: Oct 20, 2019

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Anderson JM, Niemann A, Johnson AL, Cook C, Tritz D, Vassar M

Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis

JMIR Dermatol 2019;2(1):e16078

DOI: 10.2196/16078

Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: A Cross-sectional Analysis

  • J. Michael Anderson; 
  • Andrew Niemann; 
  • Austin L. Johnson; 
  • Courtney Cook; 
  • Daniel Tritz; 
  • Matt Vassar

ABSTRACT

Background:

Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature.

Objective:

We sought to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices.

Methods:

By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and/or PubMed. Each publication was analyzed for eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency, using a pilot-tested Google Form.

Results:

After exclusions, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. The majority of publications (113, 89%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (98%) failed to make complete protocols available, and 126 (99%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts.

Conclusions:

Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Anderson JM, Niemann A, Johnson AL, Cook C, Tritz D, Vassar M

Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis

JMIR Dermatol 2019;2(1):e16078

DOI: 10.2196/16078

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.