Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 27 April 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 7 (4), e35621
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
Abstract
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/).Keywords
This publication has 45 references indexed in Scilit:
- Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic studyBMJ Open, 2011
- Changing expectations: Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2010
- Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR NetworkBMC Medicine, 2010
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidenceThe Lancet, 2009
- Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE projectQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2008
- Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'Trials, 2008
- The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review QualityPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A surveyJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2007
- Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journalsJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006