Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals.

Background: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts' quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions. Methods: Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor. Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods. Results: Almost all the reviewers (n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers (n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275). Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts.

Research rigor and reproducibility in research education: A CTSA institutional survey.

We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.

Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Characterization of Comments About bioRxiv and medRxiv Preprints.

Importance: Preprints have been increasingly used in biomedical science, and a key feature of many platforms is public commenting. The content of these comments, however, has not been well studied, and it is unclear whether they resemble those found in journal peer review. Objective: To describe the content of comments on the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint platforms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 were accessed through each platform's application programming interface on March 29, 2021, and a random sample of preprints containing between 1 and 20 comments was evaluated independently by 3 evaluators using an instrument to assess their features and general content. Main Outcome and Measures: The numbers and percentages of comments from authors or nonauthors were assessed, and the comments from nonauthors were assessed for content. These nonauthor comments were assessed to determine whether they included compliments, criticisms, corrections, suggestions, or questions, as well as their topics (eg, relevance, interpretation, and methods). Nonauthor comments were also analyzed to determine whether they included references, provided a summary of the findings, or questioned the preprint's conclusions. Results: Of 52 736 preprints, 3850 (7.3%) received at least 1 comment (mean [SD] follow-up, 7.5 [3.6] months), and the 1921 assessed comments (from 1037 preprints) had a median length of 43 words (range, 1-3172 words). The criticisms, corrections, or suggestions present in 694 of 1125 comments (61.7%) were the most prevalent content, followed by compliments (n = 428 [38.0%]) and questions (n = 393 [35.0%]). Criticisms usually regarded interpretation (n = 286), methodological design (n = 267), and data collection (n = 238), while compliments were mainly about relevance (n = 111) and implications (n = 72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of preprint comments, topics commonly associated with journal peer review were frequent. However, only a small percentage of preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 received comments on these platforms. A clearer taxonomy of peer review roles would help to describe whether postpublication peer review fulfills them.

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.

BACKGROUND: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. METHODS: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

Predictors of academic progression and desire to continue education for undergraduate and graduate nursing students: Cross-sectional study and a nested follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on predictors of nursing degree completion. Identification of predictors of student desire to continue their education could be important in developing strategies for encouraging and supporting students to complete their university-level nursing education. AIM: To explore the factors associated with the enrollment in the first graduate year of nursing studies, progression from the first to the third year of university undergraduate nursing study, and the desire of third-year undergraduate students to continue nursing education at the graduate level. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 351 first- and third-year undergraduate and first-year graduate nursing students from three cohorts of the University of Split Department of Health Studies and one generation of first- and third-year undergraduate nursing students from the Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb. We collected sociodemographic data on the participants, their opinions about their education, and scores on nine psychological questionnaires: performance self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, perseverance, attitudes towards science, self-respect, motivation, dispositional hope, future time perspective, and perceived personal incompetence. RESULTS: More than half of third-year undergraduate students wanted to continue their nursing studies at the graduate level, but they did not progress to the graduate degree studies immediately after finishing their undergraduate studies. None of the assessed characteristics predicted the desire of the final undergraduate year students to continue nursing education at the graduate level. In a nested follow-up study of a cohort of undergraduate students, we observed an increase in student attitudes towards science, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, future orientation, and a decrease in perceived personal incompetence. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that immediate progression to graduate level of nursing education, although perceived as desired, is not achieved by undergraduate nursing students. Interventions focusing on motivation, future orientation, and personal competence need to be explored as a way to promote academic progression in nursing.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists.

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists' engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists' attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists' attitudes and their open science practices.

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019.

INTRODUCTION: While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints' authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors' comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.

Toward assessing clinical trial publications for reporting transparency.

OBJECTIVE: To annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal. METHODS: We annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections. RESULTS: We created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.

The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days.

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.

Predictors of academic success and aspirations in secondary nursing education: A cross-sectional study in Croatia.

BACKGROUND: Academic success of students in nursing education is an issue causing concern in many parts of the world because of the shortage of nurses in the labour market, versatility of the educational programs and status of the students during studies and after graduation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the predictors of academic success and educational aspirations of secondary nursing school students to enrol in higher education programs. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 312 students (92.6% response rate) from the Health School in Split, Croatia, enrolled in nursing program in 2015/2016. Besides sociodemographic data and grade point average (GPA), we collected data using 9 instruments: performance self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, perseverance, attitudes towards science, self-respect, motivation, dispositional hope, future time perspective, and perceived personal incompetence. RESULTS: In a linear regression analysis, performance self-efficacy (ß = 0.38) and future time orientation (ß = 0.19) proved to be significant predictors of current GPA, explaining 20% of the variance. In logistic regression, participants' aspiration to enrol in higher education rather than get employed after secondary school graduation was predicted by higher extrinsic motivation (odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06 to 1.17) and higher performance self-efficacy (OR = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.62 to 5.77); explaining approximately 26% of the variance in the results. CONCLUSION: Performance self-efficacy and future time orientation were the main predictors of academic success of Croatian nursing students at the secondary education level. Higher performance self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation were associated with aspirations to continue university education.

The effect of a combined intervention on exclusive breastfeeding in primiparas: A randomised controlled trial.

An antenatal/postnatal intervention involving proactive telephone support and written materials was conducted among primiparas. Four hundred women, from the Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia, were randomized between November 2013 and December 2016 into three groups: intervention (IG), active control (ACG) and standard care (SCG). Primary outcome was exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included breastfeeding difficulties, attitudes towards infant feeding, breastfeeding self-efficacy and social support. Practice staff were blinded to group allocation. Of 400 women, 45 (11%) were lost to follow-up, and final analyses were conducted on 129 (IG), 103 (ACG) and 123 (SCG) participants. EBF rates at 3 months were significantly higher for the IG (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7 to 8.1; EBF 81%) as well as at 6 months (OR 15.7, 95% CI, 9.1 to 27.1; EBF 64%) compared with SCG (EBF 47% at 3 months and 3% at 6 months). Higher rates were also observed for the ACG at 3 months (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.8, EBF 68%) and 6 months (OR 2.3, 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9, EBF 16%). Participants in the IG had the highest increase in positive attitudes towards infant feeding, in comparison to baseline, and significantly higher breastfeeding self-efficacy. Participants in SCG experienced significantly more breastfeeding difficulties, both at 3 and 6 months, in comparison to AC and IGs. Written breastfeeding materials and proactive telephone support among primiparas are an effective means of increasing breastfeeding rates, decreasing breastfeeding difficulties and improving self-efficacy and attitudes towards infant feeding.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed.

OBJECTIVE: Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups. DESIGN: Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015. RESULTS: Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination. CONCLUSION: Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines.

In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.