ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings.
methodsUsing a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles.
resultsThe findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity, as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint. Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable. These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings. The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review, ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.