Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?

Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.

The relationship of study and authorship characteristics on trial sponsorship and self-reported conflicts of interest among neuro-oncology clinical trials.

PROPOSE: To examine the association between trial sponsorship sources, self-reported conflicts of interest (COI), and study and author characteristics in central nervous system (CNS) oncology clinical trials (CT). METHODS: MEDLINE search was performed for original CT on "Central Nervous System Neoplasms"[Mesh]. The investigators assessed for relationships between funding source (industry, academic or cooperative, none, not described), COI (presented, none, or not reported), CT, and author characteristics. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 319 CT were considered eligible. The majority of the studies involved primary gliomas (55.2%) and were Phase II CT (59.2%). Drug therapy was investigated in 83.0% of the CT. The remaining studies investigated surgery or radiotherapy. A minority of papers were published in journals with impact factor (IF) higher than > 10 (16%) or in regions other than North America and Europe (20.4%). Overall, 83.1% of studies disclosed funding sources: 32.6% from industry alone, 33.9% from an academic or cooperative group, and 10.7% from a mixed funding model. COI data was reported by 85.9% of trials, of which 56.2% reported no COI and 43.8% reported a related COI. Significant predictors for sponsorship (industry and/or academia) on univariate analysis were study design, type of intervention, journal impact factor, study conclusion, transparency of COI and presence of COI. On multivariate analysis, type of intervention, (P < 0.001), journal impact factor (IF) (P = 0.003), presence of COI (P < 0.001) and study conclusion (P = 0.003) remained significant predictors of sponsorship. For predicting COI, significant variables on univariate analysis were disease type, type of intervention, journal IF, funding source, and intervention arm being related to sponsor. On multivariate analysis, disease type (P = 0.003), journal IF (P < 0.001), type of intervention (P = 0.001), and funding source (P = 0.008) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of CNS CT reported some external funding sources and non-related COI. We identified that drug trials, higher IF, presence of COI, and a neutral or negative study conclusion are associated with external funding. Likewise drug trials, higher IF, and glioma trials are associated with presence of COI.

A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth.

INTRODUCTION: Research productivity has been linked to a country's intellectual and economic wealth. Further analysis is needed to assess the association between the distribution of research across disciplines and the economic status of countries. METHODS: By using 55 years of data, spanning 1962 to 2017, of Elsevier publications across a large set of research disciplines and countries globally, this manuscript explores the relationship and evolution of relative research productivity across different disciplines through a network analysis. It also explores the associations of those with economic productivity categories, as measured by the World Bank economic classification. Additional analysis of discipline similarities is possible by exploring the cross-country evolution of those disciplines. RESULTS: Results show similarities in the relative importance of research disciplines among most high-income countries, with larger idiosyncrasies appearing among the remaining countries. This group of high-income countries shows similarities in the dynamics of the relative distribution of research productivity over time, forming a stable research productivity cluster. Lower income countries form smaller, more independent and evolving clusters, and differ significantly from each other and from higher income countries in the relative importance of their research emphases. Country-based similarities in research productivity profiles also appear to be influenced by geographical proximity. CONCLUSIONS: This new form of analyses of research productivity, and its relation to economic status, reveals novel insights to the dynamics of the economic and research structure of countries. This allows for a deeper understanding of the role a country's research structure may play in shaping its economy, and also identification of benchmark resource allocations across disciplines for developing countries.

Most UK scientists who publish extremely highly-cited papers do not secure funding from major public and charity funders: A descriptive analysis.

The UK is one of the largest funders of health research in the world, but little is known about how health funding is spent. Our study explores whether major UK public and charitable health research funders support the research of UK-based scientists producing the most highly-cited research. To address this question, we searched for UK-based authors of peer-reviewed papers that were published between January 2006 and February 2018 and received over 1000 citations in Scopus. We explored whether these authors have held a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust and compared the results with UK-based researchers who serve currently on the boards of these bodies. From the 1,370 papers relevant to medical, biomedical, life and health sciences with more than 1000 citations in the period examined, we identified 223 individuals from a UK institution at the time of publication who were either first/last or single authors. Of those, 164 are still in UK academic institutions, while 59 are not currently in UK academia (have left the country, are retired, or work in other sectors). Of the 164 individuals, only 59 (36%; 95% CI: 29-43%) currently hold an active grant from one of the three funders. Only 79 (48%; 95% CI: 41-56%) have held an active grant from any of the three funders between 2006-2017. Conversely, 457 of the 664 board members of MRC, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR (69%; 95% CI: 65-72%) have held an active grant in the same period by any of these funders. Only 7 out of 655 board members (1.1%) were first, last or single authors of an extremely highly-cited paper. There are many reasons why the majority of the most influential UK authors do not hold a grant from the country's major public and charitable funding bodies. Nevertheless, the results are worrisome and subscribe to similar patterns shown in the US. We discuss possible implications and suggest ways forward.

China's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research environment: A snapshot.

In keeping with China's President Xi Jinping's "Chinese Dream," China has set a goal of becoming a world-class innovator by 2050. China's higher education Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research environment will play a pivotal role in influencing whether China is successful in transitioning from a manufacturing-based economy to an innovation-driven, knowledge-based economy. Past studies on China's research environment have been primarily qualitative in nature or based on anecdotal evidence. In this study, we surveyed STEM faculty from China's top 25 universities to get a clearer understanding of how faculty members view China's overall research environment. We received 731 completed survey responses, 17% of which were from individuals who received terminal degrees from abroad and 83% of which were from individuals who received terminal degrees from domestic institutions of higher education. We present results on why returnees decided to study abroad, returnees' decisions to return to China, and differences in perceptions between returnees and domestic degree holders on the advantages of having a foreign degree. The top five challenges to China's research environment identified by survey respondents were: a promotion of short-term thinking and instant success (37% of all respondents); research funding (33%); too much bureaucratic or governmental intervention (31%); the evaluation system (27%); and a reliance on human relations (26%). Results indicated that while China has clearly made strides in its higher education system, there are numerous challenges that must be overcome before China can hope to effectively produce the kinds of innovative thinkers that are required if it is to achieve its ambitious goals. We also raise questions about the current direction of education and inquiry in China, particularly indications that government policy is turning inward, away from openness that is central to innovative thinking.