We decided to seek the expert opinion of editors-in-chief from scientific journals in the fields of ophthalmology, optometry and vision sciences about the RR format, and their plans to adopt this format in the future. As previously stated, there is one journal (i.e., Perception) within the JCR category of ophthalmology which has already included RRs. To the remaining 58 journals, we sent an invitation to the editor(s) in chief to complete a short survey in order to collect information about their knowledge and opinion about the RR publishing format.
A self-administered online survey was developed by two of the authors of this paper (JV and BR), and it was discussed and refined in collaboration with the rest of coauthors. The final version of this survey was distributed via e-mail to the editors-in-chief of the targeted journals (journals in the 2019 JCR category of ophthalmology). A cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey, and the link to the survey was sent via e-mail at the beginning of May 2021. A reminder e-mail was sent after 14 days to those who did not respond in an effort to maximise the response rate, and a total of 8 out of 59 journals completed the online survey (14%).
Responders were asked to include the name of the journal for which they act as editor, and the survey was divided into three sections (twelve questions): (1) agreement with the description of RRs provided by the Center for Open Science (https://cos.io/rr/) (one question; Yes/No), (2) their opinion about questionable research practices such as publication bias, cherry picking, p-hacking and HARKing, and how these research practices could be solved with the adoption of the RR format (eight questions; 5-point Likert scales), and (3) whether they consider that the RR format should be adopted by journals in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and vision sciences, whether their journals have plans to introduce this publishing format, and which type of research studies are suited to the RR publication format (three questions; multiple choice).
Regarding the description of the RR format, all responders agreed with the description provided by the Center for Open Science and included above (8 out of 8; 100%). For the second section, and as depicted in Fig. 2, most responders (7 out of 8) indicated that publication bias, cherry picking, p-hacking and HARKing are a considerable problem in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and vision sciences, and it could be (partially) solved by RRs (> 3 in all cases).
Interestingly, 7 out of 8 responders indicated that the RR format should be implemented in all, or at least in some journals. However, only one editor-in-chief reported that they were planning to include the RR format in more than two years, whereas the rest of journals did not have plans to introduce this publication format (Fig. 3).
Lastly, editors-in-chief reported which types of scientific publication are suited to the RR format. Most of them (6 out of 8) marked the option “Clinical trials” and “Laboratory studies”, whereas one responder also indicated the option “Systematic reviews and meta-analysis”. However, none considered that “Case reports”, “Narrative reviews” or “Opinion articles / Editorials” may be published following the two-stage process of the RR format (Fig. 4).
Complementarily, we sent the survey to the Registered Reports Editor of the journal “Perception” in order to know his opinion about this publication format. Overall, he reported that the previously mentioned problematic research practices (i.e., publication bias, cherry picking, p-hacking and HARKing) are an important problem for science, and they can be solved with the implementation of the RR format (average response from the eight questions 4.13 ± 0.83). In addition, he has suggested that the RR format should be implemented in all scientific journals within the field of ophthalmology, optometry and vision sciences, and that “Clinical trials”, “Laboratory studies”, and “Systematic reviews and meta-analysis” are all suited to the RR publication format.