IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i6p951-961..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical trial transparency regulations: Implications to various scholarly publishing stakeholders
[COVID-19 Study Retractions Drive Research Transparency Partnership and Push for Increased Publication of Negative/Null Findings]

Author

Listed:
  • Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack
  • Jesil Mathew Aranjani
  • Sam T Mathew

Abstract

As thousands of 2019 Corona virus disease (Covid-19) clinical trials are continuously getting added to various registries these days, good practices on data sharing and transparency have become one of the prime topics of discussion than ever before. Although trial registration is considered a crucial step, there is a lack of integration between registration and published literature. Trial outcomes are a matter of public interest, but sponsor compliances are not adequate with the recommended guidelines. Although the global recognition of data transparency increases day by day, there is still a long journey to travel. It is high time that scholarly publishing stakeholders should put in a collaborative effort to check author compliance. In this article, we aimed to comprehend and discuss the imperative roles of various scholarly publishing stakeholders in improving clinical trial transparency during this pandemic situation and highlight the changing paradigm towards the pressing need for reporting clinical trial data more effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack & Jesil Mathew Aranjani & Sam T Mathew, 2022. "Clinical trial transparency regulations: Implications to various scholarly publishing stakeholders [COVID-19 Study Retractions Drive Research Transparency Partnership and Push for Increased Publica," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 951-961.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:951-961.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:951-961.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.