Shortcut citations in the methods section: Frequency, problems, and strategies for responsible reuse.

Methods sections are often missing essential details. Methodological shortcut citations, in which authors cite previous papers instead of describing the method in detail, may contribute to this problem. This meta-research study used 3 approaches to examine shortcut citation use in neuroscience, biology, and psychiatry. First, we assessed current practices in more than 750 papers. More than 90% of papers used shortcut citations. Other common reasons for using citations in the methods included giving credit or specifying what was used (who or what citation) and providing context or a justification (why citation). Next, we reviewed 15 papers to determine what can happen when readers follow shortcut citations to find methodological details. While shortcut citations can be used effectively, they can also deprive readers of essential methodological details. Problems encountered included difficulty identifying or accessing the cited materials, missing or insufficient descriptions of the cited method, and shortcut citation chains. Third, we examined journal policies. Fewer than one quarter of journals had policies describing how authors should report previously described methods. We propose that methodological shortcut citations should meet 3 criteria; cited resources should provide (1) a detailed description of (2) the method used by the citing authors', and (3) be open access. Resources that do not meet these criteria should be cited to give credit, but not as shortcut citations. We outline actions that authors and journals can take to use shortcut citations responsibly, while fostering a culture of open and reproducible methods reporting.

Longitudinal Study for the Detection and Quantification of Campylobacter spp. in Dairy Cows during Milking and in the Dairy Farm Environment.

Campylobacteriosis outbreaks have repeatedly been associated with the consumption of raw milk. This study aimed to explore the variation in the prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter spp. in cows' milk and feces, the farm environment and on the teat skin over an entire year at a small German dairy farm. Bi-weekly samples were collected from the environment (boot socks), teats, raw milk, milk filters, milking clusters and feces collected from the recta of dairy cows. Samples were analyzed for Campylobacter spp., E. coli, the total aerobic plate count and for Pseudomonas spp. The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. was found to be the highest in feces (77.1%), completely absent in milking equipment and low in raw milk (0.4%). The mean concentration of Campylobacter spp. was 2.43 log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/g in feces and 1.26 log10 CFU/teat swab. Only a single milk filter at the end of the milk pipeline and one individual cow's raw milk sample were positive on the same day, with a concentration of 2.74 log10 CFU/filter and 2.37 log10 CFU/mL for the raw milk. On the same day, nine teat swab samples tested positive for Campylobacter spp. This study highlights the persistence of Campylobacter spp. for at least one year in the intestine of individual cows and within the general farm environment and demonstrates that fecal cross-contamination of the teats can occur even when the contamination of raw milk is a rare event.

Prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter in faeces of dairy cows: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The consumption of raw milk from dairy cows has caused multiple food-borne outbreaks of campylobacteriosis in the European Union (EU) since 2011. Cross-contamination of raw milk through faeces is an important vehicle for transmission of Campylobacter to consumers. This systematic review and meta-analysis, aimed to summarize data on the prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter in faeces of dairy cows. Suitable scientific articles published up to July 2021 were identified through a systematic literature search and subjected to screening and quality assessment. Fifty-three out of 1338 identified studies were eligible for data extraction and 44 were further eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence was calculated in two different meta-analytic models: a simple model based on one average prevalence estimate per study and a multilevel meta-analytic model that included all prevalence outcomes reported in each study (including different subgroups of e.g. health status and age of dairy cows). The results of the two models were significantly different with a pooled prevalence estimate of 29%, 95% CI [23-36%] and 51%, 95% CI [44-57%], respectively. The effect of sub-groups on prevalence were analyzed with a multilevel mixed-effect model which showed a significant effect of the faecal collection methods and Campylobacter species on the prevalence. A meta-analysis on concentration data could not be performed due to the limited availability of data. This systematic review highlights important data gaps and limitations in current studies and variation of prevalence outcomes between available studies. The included studies used a variety of methods for sampling, data collection and analysis of Campylobacter that added uncertainty to the pooled prevalence estimates. Nevertheless, the performed meta-analysis improved our understanding of Campylobacter prevalence in faeces of dairy cows and is considered a valuable basis for the further development of quantitative microbiological risk assessment models for Campylobacter in (raw) milk and food products thereof.