https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2857-0315
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Matthew Chi Hong Yii, Martyn T Cobourne, Nikolaos Pandis, Jadbinder Seehra, Research transparency in articles published in orthodontic journals: is it clear?, European Journal of Orthodontics, Volume 47, Issue 3, June 2025, cjaf028, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf028
Close - Share Icon Share
Abstract
Issues regarding research transparency have been highlighted in the literature. The aim of this investigation was to assess the trend of adhering to the reporting of key transparency practices (data sharing, code sharing, COI disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration) by articles published in three leading orthodontic journals.
A Scopus database search was undertaken to identify articles published in 2013, 2018 and 2023 in three orthodontic journals. Independent data extraction was performed. Frequency distributions and cross tabulations (COI not disclosed vs COI disclosed) were calculated. Univariable logistic regression was undertaken to detect associations between COI disclosure and publication characteristics, journal type and reporting of transparency practices.
1498 articles were analysed. No data sharing statement (60.7%) was commonly cited. The intention to share data was stated in approx. 15% articles. No article stated a code sharing statement. Almost 70% articles had not registered a protocol. A third of articles disclosed the funder or sponsor (32.7.%), while approximately an equal number of articles disclosed (49.1%) or did not disclose (50.9%) any conflict of interest. Articles published in the EJO had higher odds of reporting protocol registration (OR 7.42; 95% CI: 4.55, 12.10; P < .01) and funding disclosure (OR 3.44; 95% CI: 2.52, 4.69; P < .01) compared to AO and AJODO. A COI disclosure statement was more likely to be in articles published in AJODO. The odds of reporting a data sharing statement were higher in articles published in EJO (OR 8.72; 95% CI: 5.72, 13.29; P < .001). Apart from code sharing, improvements over the 5-year intervals in reporting of transparency indicators were evident.
Only three journals were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.
Despite improvements over the 5-year intervals, the reporting of research transparency indicators requires improvement in articles published in orthodontic journals. To encourage transparent research conduct and open science practices, journals and their editors should promote reporting of research transparency indicators.
