Dataset Information

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research.

Design

We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.

Participants

All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.

Methods

We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.

Results

We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.

Conclusion

The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

SUBMITTER: Krnic Martinic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6720555 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

Krnic Martinic Marina M Meerpohl Joerg J JJ von Elm Erik E Herrle Florian F Marusic Ana A Puljak Livia L

BMJ open 20190830 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research.<h4>Design</h4>We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.<h4>Participants</h4>All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.<h4>Methods</h4>We contacted ...[more]

PMID: 31471441

Similar Datasets

Project description:Good quality medical research generally requires not only an expertise in the chosen medical field of interest but also a sound knowledge of statistical methodology. The number of medical research articles which have been published in Indian medical journals has increased quite substantially in the past decade. The aim of this study was to collate all evidence on study design quality and statistical analyses used in selected leading Indian medical journals. Ten (10) leading Indian medical journals were selected based on impact factors and all original research articles published in 2003 (N = 588) and 2013 (N = 774) were categorized and reviewed. A validated checklist on study design, statistical analyses, results presentation, and interpretation was used for review and evaluation of the articles. Main outcomes considered in the present study were - study design types and their frequencies, error/defects proportion in study design, statistical analyses, and implementation of CONSORT checklist in RCT (randomized clinical trials). From 2003 to 2013: The proportion of erroneous statistical analyses did not decrease (χ2=0.592, Φ=0.027, p=0.4418), 25% (80/320) in 2003 compared to 22.6% (111/490) in 2013. Compared with 2003, significant improvement was seen in 2013; the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased significantly (χ2=26.96, Φ=0.16, p<0.0001) from 42.5% (250/588) to 56.7 % (439/774). The overall proportion of errors in study design decreased significantly (χ2=16.783, Φ=0.12 p<0.0001), 41.3% (243/588) compared to 30.6% (237/774). In 2013, randomized clinical trials designs has remained very low (7.3%, 43/588) with majority showing some errors (41 papers, 95.3%). Majority of the published studies were retrospective in nature both in 2003 [79.1% (465/588)] and in 2013 [78.2% (605/774)]. Major decreases in error proportions were observed in both results presentation (χ2=24.477, Φ=0.17, p<0.0001), 82.2% (263/320) compared to 66.3% (325/490) and interpretation (χ2=25.616, Φ=0.173, p<0.0001), 32.5% (104/320) compared to 17.1% (84/490), though some serious ones were still present. Indian medical research seems to have made no major progress regarding using correct statistical analyses, but error/defects in study designs have decreased significantly. Randomized clinical trials are quite rarely published and have high proportion of methodological problems.

Dataset Information

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets