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

Abstract

BackgroundPre-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.MethodsWe 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).FindingsOnly 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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/).

Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015

“…En revistas que sí respaldan las directrices, el lenguaje que describe su adhesión es habitualmente vago, lo cual deja a los autores confusos respecto a qué deben hacer en lo que respecta a las directrices de presentación de la información durante el proceso de solicitud 33 . Es más, las polí-ticas sobre cómo los editores de revistas y los revisores por pares deben garantizar o aplicar la adherencia a listas de verificación de presentación de la información son, si existen, todavía menos claras 34 . Otras barreras a la implementación pueden incluir el desconocimiento de las directrices y la percepción de que el uso de una lista de verificación de presentación de la información supone una carga durante el proceso editorial 35 .…”

Instructions for the Use of MInCiR Scale to Assess Methodological Quality in Prognosis Studies

“…With the emergence of the paradigm of Evidencebased clinical practice (EBCP) (Manterola, 2009) there has been a strong development of tools designed to evaluating and improving the quality of biomedical research (Hirst & Altman, 2012). However, there is no clear concept about what is needed and how to report the results of health research assessment (Armijo-Olivo et al, 2013), and there are many different approaches that try to cover this vital area of EBPC.…”

Manual Therapy adopts mandatory reporting guidelines for publishing

“…In 2012, a survey identified that only 46% of health research journals provided peer reviewers with reporting guidelines/checklists. When present, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, a tool used to improve reporting standards for randomized controlled trials was the most common; whereas other guidelines for different research studies were rarely mentioned (Hirst and Altman, 2012). …”