Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32020542›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices.

Aaron R Caldwell, Andrew D Vigotsky, Matthew S Tenan, Rémi Radel, David T Mellor, Andreas Kreutzer, Ian M Lahart, John P Mills, Matthieu P Boisgontier, Consortium for Transparency in Exercise Science (COTES) Collaborators

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Aaron R CaldwellExercise Science Research Center, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Andrew D VigotskyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. avigotsky@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3166-0688
Matthew S TenanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Rémi RadelLaboratoire LAMHESS, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.
David T MellorCenter for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Andreas KreutzerDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Ian M LahartInstitute of Human Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK.
John P MillsSchool of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Matthieu P BoisgontierDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9376-3071
Consortium for Transparency in Exercise Science (COTES) Collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary means of disseminating sport and exercise science research is currently through journal articles. However, not all studies, especially those with null findings, make it to formal publication. This publication bias towards positive findings may contribute to questionable research practices. Preregistration is a solution to prevent the publication of distorted evidence resulting from this system. This process asks authors to register their hypotheses and methods before data collection on a publicly available repository or by submitting a Registered Report. In the Registered Report format, authors submit a stage 1 manuscript to a participating journal that includes an introduction, methods, and any pilot data indicating the exploratory or confirmatory nature of the study. After a stage 1 peer review, the manuscript can then be offered in-principle acceptance, rejected, or sent back for revisions to improve the quality of the study. If accepted, the project is guaranteed publication, assuming the authors follow the data collection and analysis protocol. After data collection, authors re-submit a stage 2 manuscript that includes the results and discussion, and the study is evaluated on clarity and conformity with the planned analysis. In its final form, Registered Reports appear almost identical to a typical publication, but give readers confidence that the hypotheses and main analyses are less susceptible to bias from questionable research practices. From this perspective, we argue that inclusion of Registered Reports by researchers and journals will improve the transparency, replicability, and trust in sport and exercise science research. The preprint version of this work is available on SportR[Formula: see text]iv: https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/fxe7a/.

Indexed as

ExerciseSportsHumansPublication BiasResearch

Identifiers

PMID32020542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.