Background

The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and the failure of peer review journals to identify and correct these practices. In response, it has been proposed that journals employ editorial procedures designed to improve the transparency of published research.

Objective

The present study examines the adoption of editorial procedures designed to improve the reporting of empirical studies in the field of nutrition and dietetics research.

Design

The instructions for authors of 43 journals included in Quartiles 1 and 2 of the Clarivate Analytics’ 2018 Journal Citation Report category Nutrition and Dietetics were reviewed. For journals that published original research, conflict of interest disclosure, recommendation of reporting guidelines, registration of clinical trials, registration of other types of studies, encouraging data sharing, and use of the Registered Reports were assessed. For journals that only published reviews, all of the procedures except clinical trial registration were assessed.

Results

Thirty-three journals published original research and 10 published only reviews. Conflict of interest disclosure was required by all 33 original research journals. Use of guidelines, trial registration and encouragement of data sharing were mentioned by 30, 27 and 25 journals, respectively. Registration of other studies was required by eight and none offered Registered Reports as a publication option at the time of the review. All 10 review journals required conflict of interest disclosure, four recommended data sharing and three the use of guidelines. None mentioned the other two procedures.

Conclusions

While nutrition journals have adopted a number of procedures designed to improve the reporting of research findings, their limited effects likely result from the mechanisms through which they influence analytic flexibility and selective reporting and the extent to which they are properly implemented and enforced by journals.

中文翻译：

---

高影响力营养和营养学期刊使用出版程序来提高研究透明度

背景

近年来，已发表的营养研究研究的严谨性和完整性受到严重质疑。担忧集中在使用灵活的数据分析实践和选择性报告，以及同行评审期刊未能识别和纠正这些做法。作为回应，有人建议期刊采用旨在提高已发表研究透明度的编辑程序。

客观的

本研究探讨了旨在改进营养和营养学研究领域实证研究报告的编辑程序的采用。

设计

审查了 Clarivate Analytics 的 2018 年期刊引文报告类别营养和饮食学第 1 和第 2 分位数中包含的 43 种期刊的作者说明。对于发表原创研究的期刊，评估了利益冲突披露、报告指南推荐、临床试验注册、其他类型研究的注册、鼓励数据共享和注册报告的使用。对于只发表评论的期刊，除了临床试验注册之外的所有程序都进行了评估。

结果

33 种期刊发表了原创研究，10 种仅发表评论。所有 33 种原创研究期刊都要求披露利益冲突。分别有 30、27 和 25 种期刊提及指南的使用、试验注册和鼓励数据共享。八项研究要求注册其他研究，并且在审查时没有提供注册报告作为发表选项。所有 10 种评论期刊都要求披露利益冲突，四种推荐的数据共享和三种使用指南。没有人提到其他两个程序。

结论

虽然营养期刊采用了许多旨在改进研究结果报告的程序，但它们的有限影响可能是由于它们影响分析灵活性和选择性报告的机制以及期刊正确实施和执行它们的程度。