Cargando…

Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals

BACKGROUND: Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hirst, Allison, Altman, Douglas G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
_version_ 1782231246875656192
author Hirst, Allison
Altman, Douglas G.
author_facet Hirst, Allison
Altman, Douglas G.
author_sort Hirst, Allison
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. METHODS: We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). FINDINGS: Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3338712
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33387122012-05-03 Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals Hirst, Allison Altman, Douglas G. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. METHODS: We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). FINDINGS: Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/). Public Library of Science 2012-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3338712/ /pubmed/22558178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621 Text en Hirst, Altman. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hirst, Allison
Altman, Douglas G.
Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title_full Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title_fullStr Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title_full_unstemmed Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title_short Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
title_sort are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? a survey of 116 health research journals
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
work_keys_str_mv AT hirstallison arepeerreviewersencouragedtousereportingguidelinesasurveyof116healthresearchjournals
AT altmandouglasg arepeerreviewersencouragedtousereportingguidelinesasurveyof116healthresearchjournals