Biomedical
A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018
Peer Reviewed
Abstract
Key Questions about Reproducibility in Urology Research
The article "A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to 2018" assesses the availability of essential components for reproducibility in urology research. The study found that among 171 articles with empirical data, only 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% offered access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies included analysis scripts. These findings highlight significant gaps in transparency and reproducibility within the field.
1. What indicators were assessed to evaluate reproducibility in urology publications?
The study evaluated 14 indicators of reproducibility, including:
- Availability of materials
- Access to raw data
- Availability of analysis scripts
- Pre-registration information
- Links to protocols
- Public accessibility of the publication
- Statements about conflicts of interest
- Funding sources
These indicators were used to assess the transparency and reproducibility of the research.
2. What were the findings regarding the availability of reproducibility components in the sampled publications?
The findings were as follows:
- 0.58% provided links to protocols
- 4.09% offered access to raw data
- 3.09% provided access to materials
- 4.68% were pre-registered
- None included analysis scripts
These statistics indicate a significant lack of transparency and resources necessary for reproducibility in urology research.
3. What recommendations do the authors make to improve research quality and reproducibility in urology?
The authors recommend collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors to enhance research quality. They emphasize the need to provide essential components for reproducibility, such as materials, data, and protocols, to minimize waste and patient risk.
