Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932429›Full record

ArticleSports medicine - open2022

Feasibility of an Audit and Feedback Intervention to Facilitate Journal Policy Change Towards Greater Promotion of Transparency and Openness in Sports Science Research.

Harrison J Hansford, Aidan G Cashin, Matthew K Bagg, Michael A Wewege, Michael C Ferraro, Sina Kianersi, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Sean P Grant, Elaine Toomey, Ian W Skinner and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Harrison J HansfordSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Aidan G CashinSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew K BaggCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Michael A WewegeSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Michael C FerraroCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Sina KianersiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Evan Mayo-WilsonDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Sean P GrantDepartment of Social & Behavioural Sciences, Indiana University Richard M, Fairbanks School of Public Health at Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Elaine ToomeyHealth Research Institute School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Ian W SkinnerSchool of Allied Health, Charles Sturt University, Exercise and Sport Sciences, Port Macquarie, Australia.
James H McAuleySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Hopin LeeCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Matthew D JonesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. matthew.jones@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5534-755X

Funding

Arnold Ventures grant support from Arnold Ventures for the TRUST initiativeArnold Ventures grant support from Arnold Ventures for the TRUST initiative. paid as the Associate Editor for Systematic Reviews for the American Journal of Public HealthNational Health and Medical Research Council a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research AustraliaNational Health and Medical Research Council a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South WalesNational Health and Medical Research Council Medical Research Council of AustraliaNational Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship from the National HealthNeuroscience Research Australia a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research AustraliaNeuroscience Research Australia Australian Government Research Training Program ScholarshipNeuroscience Research Australia the Edward C. Dunn Foundation Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility.

resultsThe audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0-27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability.

conclusionPolicies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies. REGISTRATION: OSF ( https://osf.io/d2t4s/ ).

Indexed as

Open scienceReplicabilitySports scienceTransparency

Identifiers

PMID35932429
PMCPMC9357245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.