Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.
Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.
复制标题
神经科学期刊接受复制吗？文学综述。
DOI：
10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Yeung AWK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yeung AWK
背景：神经科学的最新报告，特别是关于脑损伤和神经成像的报告，揭示了该领域内结果的低重复性，并敦促进行更多的重复研究。然而，目前还不清楚神经科学期刊是欢迎还是不鼓励提交关于复制研究的报告。因此，目前的研究评估了神经科学期刊在复制方面的明确地位。方法：利用Scope us数据库编制神经科学英文活跃期刊目录。访问这些期刊网站是为了阅读它们的目的、范围和对作者的说明，并评估它们是否：(1)明确表示接受复制；(2)没有表明对复制的立场；(3)强调手稿的新颖性，含蓄地阻止复制；或(4)明确表示拒绝复制。对于明确表示接受或拒绝复制的期刊，记录它们在神经科学中的子类别及其5年影响因子。发表的神经科学复制研究的分布也通过从Scope us搜索和提取数据来记录。结果：在465种期刊中，28种(6.0%)明确表示接受复制，394种(84.7%)没有表明对复制的立场，40种(8.6%)通过强调稿件的新颖性而含蓄地不鼓励复制，3种(0.6%)明确表示拒绝复制。在明确欢迎复制的28种期刊中，3种(10.7%)在目的和范围上表明了自己的立场，而25种(89.3%)在作者详细说明中陈述了自己的立场。这些期刊的五年影响因子(2015年)从1.655到10.799不等，其中九本(32.1%)在2015年没有获得五年或年度影响因子。明确欢迎复制的期刊的比例没有显著差异(有与没有影响因子的期刊，或高影响因子与低影响因子的期刊)。神经科学的所有子类都至少有一本欢迎复制的期刊。讨论：报道了欢迎复制和发表复制的神经科学期刊。这些信息可以提供关于复制的当前期刊实践的描述性信息，从而可以向期刊出版商提出基于证据的建议。
Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications. Discussion: The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Poldrack RA;Barch DM;Mitchell JP;Wager TD;Wagner AD;Devlin JT;Cumba C;Koyejo O;Milham MP
通讯作者：
Milham MP
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Gorgolewski KJ;Varoquaux G;Rivera G;Schwarz Y;Ghosh SS;Maumet C;Sochat VV;Nichols TE;Poldrack RA;Poline JB;Yarkoni T;Margulies DS
通讯作者：
Margulies DS
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Schmidt, Stefan
通讯作者：
Schmidt, Stefan
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Falagas, Matthew E.;Pitsouni, Eleni I.;Pappas, Georgios
通讯作者：
Pappas, Georgios
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Errington TM;Iorns E;Gunn W;Tan FE;Lomax J;Nosek BA
通讯作者：
Nosek BA