Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2023.e5107Keywords:
Serial Publications, Manuscripts as Topic, Ethics, Profissional Misconduct, EducationAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The debate on scientific research and reporting integrity issues in Brazil is incipient. Literature suggests that a journalology training course could help to improve the competencies of the participants. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the immediate impact of a journalology training course on perceived academic competencies, comprised of knowledge, attitudes, and skills. METHODS: The course was taught in 5 consecutive days to an online audience of individuals from the health sciences. A self-applied questionnaire was employed before and immediately after the course, which included initial and acquired perceived knowledge, attitudes, skills. The Wilcoxon non-parametric test for paired samples was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 45 individuals participated in the course, with a 53% response rate before and after. The number of participants in each course session ranged between 32 and 45. There was an improvement in perceived knowledge of: (1) writing review articles; (2) ethical aspects of research; (3) scientific authorship; (4) predatory practices; (5) publication bias and spin, and (6) researcher evaluation. There was no improvement in self-reported attitudes towards any item. There was an improvement in the perception of skills relating to: (1) writing a response letter and (2) writing an opinion as a reviewer. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, attendees who participated in the survey reported perceived improved knowledge and skills in some items but not in their attitudes. Therefore, the course appears to have been unable to modify perceived scientific reporting competencies.
Downloads
References
(1) Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0127502
(2) Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, Polka JK, Pálfy M, Nanni F, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol. 2021;19(4):e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
(3) Wilson M, Moher D. The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine. Semin Nucl Med. 2019;49(2):105-14. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.009
(4) Panofsky DPA. Metascience as a scientific social movement. In Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 1–30. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9781107415324A009/type/book_part
(5) Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6
(6) Galipeau J, Moher D, Campbell C, Hendry P, Cameron DW, Palepu A, et al. A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(3):257-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024
(7) Pemberton M, Hall S, Moskovitz C, Anson CM. Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview‐based study. Learn Publ. 2019;32(4):355-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1259
(8) Fernández E, García AM, Serés E, Bosch F. Students’ satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e018657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018657
(9) Li D, Cornelis G. Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between China and Flanders: a qualitative study. Account Res. 2021;28(2):63-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1802586
(10) Adam L, Anderson V, Spronken-Smith R. ‘It’s not fair’: policy discourses and students’ understandings of plagiarism in a New Zealand university. High Educ. 2017;74(1):17-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0025-9
(11) Pádua GCC, Guilhem D. Scientific integrity and research in health in Brazil: a review of literature. Rev Bioét. 2015;23(1):123-37. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422015231053
(12) Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8
(13) Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):176-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7
(14) Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
(15) Barbosa QF, Rodrigues CS, Novaes MRCG. Scientific integrity in the education of health professionals. Rev Bioét. 2019;27(1):120-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422019271294
(16) Ščepanović R, Labib K, Buljan I, Tijdink J, Marušić A. Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021;27(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
(17) Krokoscz M. Approach to plagiarism in the three best universities of each one of the five continents and Brazil. Rev Bras Educ. 2011;16(48):745-70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782011000300011
(18) Oliveira MB. The epidemic of misconduct in science: the collapse of the moralizer treatment. Sci Stud. 2015;13(4):867-97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662015000400007
(19) Barreto Segundo JD, Villalobos APO, Sá KN. Empirical evidence for iThenticate software usage by scientific journal editors – experience report. Rev Eletron Comun Inf Inov Saúde. 2022;16(1):188-203. https://doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v16i1.2297
(20) Borges J, Brandão G, Barros SS. Educação para a informação: como promover competências infocomunicacionais. São Paulo: Pimenta Cultural; 2022. https://doi.org/10.31560/pimentacultural/2022.234
(21) Blanco D, Schroter S, Aldcroft A, Moher D, Boutron I, Kirkham JJ, et al. Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e036799. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036799
(22) Bruton SV, Brown M, Sacco DF, Didlake R. Testing an active intervention to deter researchers’ use of questionable research practices. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0085-3
(23) Ghannad M, Yang B, Leeflang M, Aldcroft A, Bossuyt PM, Schroter S, et al. A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract’s conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.014
(24) Haven T, Tijdink J, Martinson B, Bouter L, Oort F. Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6:7. https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs41073-021-00110-w
(25) Williams D. Motivated ignorance, rationality, and democratic politics. Synthese. 2021;198:7807-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02549-8
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Charles Phillipe de Lucena Alves, João de Deus Barreto Segundo, Marina Christ Franco, Rafael Ratto de Moraes, David Moher, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Anelise Fernandes Montagner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyrights, transferring to the Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare only the right of first publication. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
