Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
206,690 studies31 sourcesUpdated 25 min ago
PreprintCC BY 4.0PsyArXiv

Ensuring quality in research, 'Authorship Effect' & Conflict of Interest. Response submitted to BMJ Mental Health in response to 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool

  • Alastair Cockburn
  • Karen Lascelles
  • Leah Quinlivan
Open at sourcePDFDOICite

Abstract

This paper is a response to the recent BMJ Mental Health publication, 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool.’1 We outline several methodological limitations, including a dissonance between the participants’ responses and the study conclusions, recruitment, reflexivity, and conflict of interests. We conclude with highlighting the importance of scientific standards and academic integrity in producing trusted, unbiased, good quality research.

Related

  1. Acceptability of Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) in neonatal transport: a qualitative study on mothers' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on KMC transport in Ghana.
    Emmanuel Okai, Frankie Fair, Hilda Danquah Konadu +4
    BMC pediatricsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsEurope PMCDOAJ
  2. Stakeholder perspectives on the anticipated acceptability of low-intensity psychological interventions in Java, Indonesia: A theoretically framed qualitative study
    Herni Susanti, Novitri Nurimani Asha, Penny Bee +7
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textPsychiatry & mental healthPLOS
  3. “There is a Place for it”—Practitioners’ Perspectives on Situated Ethical Acceptability of AI Technologies for Mental Health Practice: Qualitative Study
    Abeer Alotaibi, Corina Sas
    JMIR Mental HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthPMC
  4. Fairness as an Ethical Imperative in Dental Assessment: German Students' Perspectives on Oral Examinations and Structured Assessment Formats.
    Lisa Morlock, Sarah Rampf, Stefan Rupf +4
    Dentistry journalPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEpidemiology & public healthEurope PMC
  5. Qualitative Assessment of Access to Community Mental Health Centers from the Perspectives of Patients, Patient Relatives, and Healthcare Professionals
    Sultan Kökcealan, Yeşim Maçça Polat, Ayşe Okanlı +3
    Psikiyatride Güncel YaklaşımlarPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textPsychiatry & mental healthDOAJ

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@misc{cockburn2026ensuring,
  title = {{Ensuring quality in research, 'Authorship Effect' & Conflict of Interest. Response submitted to BMJ Mental Health in response to 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool}},
  author = {Alastair Cockburn and Karen Lascelles and Leah Quinlivan},
  howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.31234/osf.io/dc6t5_v1},
  url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/dc6t5_v1/},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Ensuring quality in research, 'Authorship Effect' & Conflict of Interest. Response submitted to BMJ Mental Health in response to 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool
AU  - Alastair Cockburn
AU  - Karen Lascelles
AU  - Leah Quinlivan
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/19
PB  - PsyArXiv
DO  - 10.31234/osf.io/dc6t5_v1
UR  - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/dc6t5_v1/
AB  - This paper is a response to the recent BMJ Mental Health publication, 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool.’1 We outline several methodological limitations, including a dissonance between the participants’ responses and the study conclusions, recruitment, reflexivity, and conflict of interests. We conclude with highlighting the importance of scientific standards and academic integrity in producing trusted, unbiased, good quality research.
ER  -