Investigation of Research Quality and Transparency in Neurosurgery Through the Utilization of Open Science Practices

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectiveNeurosurgical research is a rapidly evolving field, with numerous studies continuously published. As the body of research grows, upholding high-quality standards becomes increasingly essential. Open science practices offer tools to ensure quality and transparency. However, the prevalence of these practices remains unclear. This study investigated the extent to which neurosurgical publications have implemented open science practices.MethodsFive open science practices (preprint, equator guidelines, published peer review comments, preregistration, and open accessibility to data and methods) were measured from five top-ranked neurosurgical journals (Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, andActa Neurochirurgica), according to Google Scholar. One hundred fifty articles were randomly sampled from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Two reviewers analyzed these articles for their utilization of open science practices. A third reviewer settled disagreements.ResultsOne journal required (20%) and three journals (60%) recommended utilizing EQUATOR guidelines. Three journals (60%) allowed preprints, and all five journals (100%) recommended or required preregistration of clinical trials, but only two (40%) recommended preregistration for systematic reviews (Figure 1). All five journals (100%) recommended or required methods to be publicly available, but none (0%) published peer-review comments.Neurosurgical Reviewutilized the most open science practices, with a mean utilization of 1.4 open science practices per publication versus 0.9 across the other four journals (p < 0.001). Moreover,Neurosurgical Reviewsignificantly utilized more open science practices versusJournal of Neurosurgery(p < .05) andWorld Neurosurgery(p < .05). Both randomized controlled trials (p < .001) and systematic reviews (p < .001) significantly utilized more open science practices compared to observational studies.ConclusionsDespite advocacy from neurosurgical journals, the adoption of open science practices still needs improvement. Implementing incentives and clearer requirements may prove beneficial. Promoting these practices is crucial to enhancing transparency and research quality in neurosurgery.