Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

Rehlicki, Daniel; Plenkovic, Mia; Delac, Ljerka; Pieper, Dawid; Marušić, Ana; Puljak, Livia

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.11.008

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Journal author instructions could potentially bridge this gap. However, previous assessments by Biocic et al, Goldberg et al, and Rehlicki et al revealed underperformance in the inclusion of search method requirements in author instructions [17–19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

Pauwels,

Koobasi,

Fry

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSystematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.MethodsA sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).ResultsOne‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.ConclusionJournals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

Pauwels,

Koobasi,

Fry

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

Zhong,

Xing,

et al. 2024

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence. Methods In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated. Results The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001). Conclusion The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency. Critical relevance statement It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals. Key Points The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 2 publications

References 42 publications

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About