Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40587200›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2025

Journal of Global Health's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing 'paper mills', duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence.

Igor Rudan, Peige Song, Davies Adeloye, Harry Campbell

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Igor RudanCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Peige SongSchool of Public Health, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Davies AdeloyeCentre for Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesborough, UK.
Harry CampbellCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, global accessibility to large 'big data' repositories that enable 'open research' - such as the UK Biobank, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) datasets - has created unprecedented opportunities for researchers worldwide to conduct secondary data analyses. This development is particularly beneficial for early-career researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as it lets them access large and otherwise costly datasets without the need for local infrastructure, potentially curbing brain drain. However, through our work at the Journal of Global Health (JoGH), we have identified emerging concerns that must be addressed to help preserve the integrity and scientific value of this otherwise positive trend. These include: the risk of 'paper mills' mass-producing superficial papers with questionable authorship practices; duplicate publications produced through republishing already available results or by multiple groups testing the same hypothesis using identical datasets and methods without awareness of each other's work; proliferation of false-positive findings due to inadequate adjustment for multiple testing in large datasets; and the inappropriate or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in generating manuscripts. To counter these issues while continuing to support legitimate and innovative secondary data analyses, JoGH is introducing guidelines for authors submitting such work for consideration and peer review. These guidelines require authors to declare transparently: their previous published work based on similar datasets or hypotheses; the originality of their research question and design in the context of other similar research; their awareness of related published studies using the same dataset; how they addressed multiple testing statistically; and the role of AI, if any, in manuscript preparation or data analysis. A new, mandatory section in such submitted manuscripts - 'Adherence to JoGH's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP)' - will summarise these declarations, with full details provided in a supplemental file. This proactive editorial policy aims to safeguard scientific quality while empowering global researchers. By improving transparency and accountability, JoGH seeks to ensure that the benefits of open big data are not undermined by unethical or careless practices. We suggest that other publishers engage in an open discussion on how to address these challenges and consider adopting JoGH's GRABDROP guidelines or similar measures to maintain trust in scientific outputs derived from secondary analyses. Through these steps, JoGH remains committed to fostering reproducible and equitable global health research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBig DataGlobal HealthGuidelines as TopicPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40587200
PMCPMC12208284

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.