Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

Abstract

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Automated detection of over- and under-dispersion in baseline tables in randomised controlled trials

“…and a previous study similarly found highly varied reporting in age and gender in the clinicaltrials.gov database [19]. Journals that wanted to use our algorithm to screen trials may need to provide more guidance to authors, although journal editors have raised concerns that authors rarely read instructions [51], and there is no systematic study of whether journal instructions are read [52].…”

Integrity culture is underpinned by education, not post-submission dishonesty assessments

“…In a robust evaluation comparing integral versus fabricated data (Hartgerink et al, 2019), the authors' concluded: 'we argue against widespread (possible automatic) application of these tools'. Instead of targeting submissions for early integrity assessments with doubtful tools, journals need to put their own house in order, for example by first getting their instructions to authors right regarding transparency (Malički et al, 2021).…”

Internationalization of Brazilian Psychodrama

“…The analysis of instructions to the authors of several scientific journals, from 1987 to 2017, through a systematic review and meta-analysis identified the increasing detailing of items over time, especially in journals with a higher impact factor, in the health area and those more generalists, differences between countries and between databases (Malički et al, 2021).…”

“…With these criteria of analysis, Malički et al (2021) suggested professional consulting to meet the growing demands, which was adopted by the Revista Brasileira de Psicodrama in recent years.…”