The "REAPPRAISED" Checklist for Evaluation of Publication Integrity

Image of and hotlink to the pdf of the REAPPRAISED Checklist for the Evaluation of Publication Integrity

 

1. "Check for Publication Integrity before Misconduct" (post; pdf) presents "[a] tool that focuses on papers - not research behaviour" to help "readers, editors and institutions assess which publications to trust."

  • "Although designed for clinical and animal studies, the structured approach to investigation applies more broadly."
  • It can be "used during both manuscript review and post-publication evaluation ... [and] could even be published alongside decisions to retract, issue an expression of concern, correct a paper, or let it stand."

2. The REAPPRAISED Checklist for Evaluation of Publication Integrity (pdf version)

"R - Research governance"

☐ "Are the locations where the research took place specified, and is this information plausible?"

☐ "Is a funding source reported?"

☐ "Has the study been registered?"

☐ "Are details such as dates and study methods in the publication consistent with those in the registration documents?"

"E- Ethics"

☐ "Is there evidence that the work has been approved by a specific, recognized committee?"

☐ "Are there any concerns about unethical practice?"

"A - Authorship" 

☐ "Do all authors meet criteria for authorship?"

☐ "Are contributorship statements present?"

☐ "Are contributorship statements complete?"

☐ "Is authorship of related papers consistent?"

☐ "Can co-authors attest to the reliability of the paper?"

"P - Productivity"

☐ "Is the volume of work reported by research group plausible, including that indicated by concurrent studies from the same group?"

☐ "Is the reported staffing adequate for the study conduct as reported?"

"P - Plagiarism"

☐ "Is there evidence of copied work?"

☐ "Is there evidence of text recycling (cutting and pasting text between papers), including text that is inconsistent with the study?"

"R - Research conduct"

☐ "Is the recruitment of participants plausible within the stated time frame for the research?"

☐ "Is the recruitment of participants plausible considering the epidemiology of the disease in the area of the study location?"

☐ "Do the numbers of animals purchased and housed align with numbers in the publication?"

☐ "Is the number of participant withdrawals compatible with the disease, age and timeline?"

☐ "Is the number of participant deaths compatible with the disease, age and timeline?"

☐ "Is the interval between study completion and manuscript submission plausible?"

☐ "Could the study plausibly be completed as described?"

"A - Analyses and methods"

☐ "Are the study methods plausible, at the location specified?"

☐ "Have the correct analyses been undertaken and reported?"

☐ "Is there evidence of poor methodology, including":

☐ "Missing data"

☐ "Inappropriate data handling"

☐ "‘P-hacking’: biased or selective analyses that promote fragile results"

☐ "Other unacknowledged multiple statistical testing"

☐ "Is there outcome switching — that is, do the analysis and discussion focus on measures other than those specified in registered analysis plans?"

"I - Image manipulation"

☐ "Is there evidence of manipulation or duplication of images?"

S - Statistics and data

☐ "Are any data impossible?"

☐ "Are subgroup means incompatible with those for the whole cohort?"

☐ "Are the reported summary data compatible with the reported range?"

☐ "Are the summary outcome data identical across study groups?"

☐ "Are there any discrepancies between data reported in figures, tables and text?"

☐ "Are statistical test results compatible with reported data?"

☐ "Are any data implausible?

☐ "Are any of the baseline data excessively similar or different between randomized groups?"

☐ "Are any of the outcome data unexpected outliers?"

☐ Are the frequencies of the outcomes unusual?"

☐ Are any data outside the expected range for sex, age or disease?"

☐ Are there any discrepancies between the values for percentage and absolute change?"

☐ Are there any discrepancies between reported data and participant inclusion criteria?"

☐ Are the variances in biological variables surprisingly consistent over time?"

"E- Errors"

☐ "Are correct units reported?"

☐ "Are numbers of participants correct and consistent throughout the publication?"

☐ "Are calculations of proportions and percentages correct?"

☐ "Are results internally consistent?"

☐ "Are the results of statistical testing internally consistent and plausible?"

☐ "Are other data errors present?"

☐ "Are there typographical errors?"

"D - Data duplication and reporting"

☐ "Have the data been published elsewhere?"

☐ "Is any duplicate reporting acknowledged or explained?"

☐ "How many data are duplicate reported?"

☐ "Are duplicate-reported data consistent between publications?"

☐ "Are relevant methods consistent between publications?"

Printer Friendly, PDF & Email