Cardiac and cardiovascular system journals infrequently require, recommend or enforce the use of reporting guidelines. Furthermore, too few require or enforce the use of clinical trial registration. Cardiology journal editors should consider guideline adoption due to their potential to limit bias and increase transparency.

No abstract

Background Reporting guidelines and trial/review registration policies have been instituted in order to minimize bias and improve research practices. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the policies of hematology journals concerning reporting guideline adoption and trial/review registration. Methods We performed a web-based data abstraction from the Instructions for Authors of 67 hematology journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports to identify whether each journal required, recommended or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR, ICMJE, CONSORT, MOOSE, QUOROM, PRISMA, STARD, STROBE, ARRIVE and CARE. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial or systematic review registration. We e-mailed editors three times to determine which types of studies their journal accepts. Results Forty-eight per cent (32/67) of hematology journals do not adhere to any reporting guidelines. For responding journals, the QUOROM statement, MOOSE, CARE and PROSPERO were the least often mentioned, whereas the ICMJE guidelines, CONSORT statement and general trial registration were most often mentioned. Discussion Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by hematology journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial or systematic review database registration. A higher rate of adherence to reporting guidelines can prevent bias from entering the literature. Participation from all stakeholders, including authors and journal editors, to improve reporting guideline and policy practices is required.