Ubai Alsharif

Methods sections are often missing critical details needed to reproduce an experiment. Methodological shortcut citations, in which authors cite previous papers instead of describing the method in detail, may contribute to this problem. This meta-research study used three approaches to systematically examine the use of shortcut citations in neuroscience, biology and psychiatry. First, we examined papers to determine why authors use citations in the methods section and to assess how often shortcut citations were used. Common reasons for using citations in the methods section included explaining how something was done by citing a previous resource that used the method (methodological shortcut citation), giving credit or specifying what was used (who or what citation), and providing context or a justification (why citation). Next, we reviewed 15 papers to determine what can happen when readers follow shortcut citations to find methodological details. While shortcut citations can be used effectively, problems encountered included difficulty identifying or accessing the cited materials, missing or insufficient descriptions of the cited method, and chains of shortcut citations. Third, we examined journal policies. Fewer than one quarter of journals had policies describing how authors should report methods that have been described previously or asking authors to explain modifications of previously described methods. We propose that methodological shortcut citations should meet three criteria; cited resources should describe a method very similar to the authors’ method, provide enough detail to allow others to implement the method, and be open access. We outline actions that authors and journals can take to use shortcut citations responsibly, while fostering a culture of open and reproducible methods reporting.

Background: Guidelines recommended for resection of oral cancer define a free margin of ≥5 mm as clear and safe (R0). This statement was questioned recently based on the assumption that different surgical margins may hold different risk categories. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of stratification of the surgical margins on the survival outcome of patients with oral cancer.Methods: In a cohort of 753 patients, the hazard ratio for local recurrence‐free survival (LRFS), overall survival (OS), and oral cancer‐specific survival (OCSS) were estimated for R0 resection, the close margin of 1–4 mm, involved resection borders but with free frozen sections. Competing risk factors were considered in the statistical regression model.Results: One hundred seventy‐three (23%) patients developed local recurrence and 316 (42%) died in the 5 follow‐up years. There was a gradual improvement in the LRFS, OCSS, OS with the increase of clear margin. OS showed a similar tendency.Conclusion: Not all patients with an R0cm status carry the same risk for impaired LRFS, OCSS, and OS. Their risk to develop recurrence is higher than those patients with R0 ≥5 mm but stratified risk management can be recommended according to the presented results.