Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.
Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Altman DG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hirst A;Altman DG
出版前的同行评议的手稿应提高研究出版物的价值，读者谁可能希望利用临床护理或卫生政策制定的结果。所有医学专业的许多已发表的研究都是无用的，可能是误导，浪费甚至有害的。报告指南是一种工具，除了帮助作者准备更好的稿件外，还可以帮助同行评审员评估稿件。我们研究了期刊对同行评审员的指导，看看是否以及如何鼓励评审员使用它们。我们调查了McMaster列表中的116种期刊的网站。主要结果是：1）识别同行评审员的在线指示，2）指示中是否存在关键领域：期刊物流，评审员礼仪和解决手稿内容（11个领域）。只有41/116的期刊（35%）提供在线指导。所有41名指导评审员都对其评审过程的后勤工作进行了指导，38名（93%）概述了预期的行为标准，39名（95%）包含了有关评估手稿内容的说明。关于如何评价稿件内容，对审稿人的明确指导存在很大差异。几乎一半的在线说明（19/41）（46%）提到报告指南，通常作为一般性陈述，暗示它们可能有用或询问作者是否遵循了它们，而不是关于如何使用它们的明确说明。所有19个名称为CONSORT的随机试验报告，但很少提到CONSORT扩展。PRISMA、QUOROM（PRISMA的前身）、STARD、STROBE和MOOSE被多个期刊提及。没有其他报告指南被两个以上的期刊提及。尽管几乎一半的指示提到了报告准则，但它们在改进研究出版物方面的价值没有得到充分认识。期刊有责任支持同行评审员。我们提出了几项建议，包括更广泛地参考赤道网络在线图书馆（www.equator-network.org/）。
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. 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). 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. 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/).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Hopewell S;Altman DG;Moher D;Schulz KF
通讯作者：
Schulz KF
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
da Costa, Bruno R.;Cevallos, Myriam;Egger, Matthias
通讯作者：
Egger, Matthias
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Frank, E
通讯作者：
Frank, E
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
Boutron, Isabelle;Moher, David;Ravaud, Philippe
通讯作者：
Ravaud, Philippe
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Freda, Margaret Comerford;Kearney, Margaret H.;Dougherty, Molly
通讯作者：
Dougherty, Molly