A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Blanco, David, Hren, Darko, Kirkham, Jamie, Cobo, Erik, Schroter, Sara
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2019
País:España
Institución:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repositorio:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/3358
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358
https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Exhaustivitat dels informes
Polítiques de la revista
Qualitat dels informes
Informes directrius
Enquesta
Barreres
Facilitadors
Exhaustividad de los informes
Políticas de la revista
Calidad de los informes
Informes directrices
Encuesta
Barreras
Facilitadores
Completeness of reporting
Journal policies
Quality of reporting
Reporting guidelines
Survey
Barriers
Facilitators
61
id ES_e3fc6c3c31cf712c8b72eaa44af90ea7
oai_identifier_str oai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/3358
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelinesBlanco, DavidHren, DarkoKirkham, JamieCobo, ErikSchroter, SaraExhaustivitat dels informesPolítiques de la revistaQualitat dels informesInformes directriusEnquestaBarreresFacilitadorsExhaustividad de los informesPolíticas de la revistaCalidad de los informesInformes directricesEncuestaBarrerasFacilitadoresCompleteness of reportingJournal policiesQuality of reportingReporting guidelinesSurveyBarriersFacilitators61Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this surveyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionF1000 Research2019info:eu-repo/semantics/article29http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3reponame:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunyainstname:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)InglésF1000Research8https://f1000research.com/articles/8-1682/v3info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207© 2019 Blanco D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/33582026-05-29T05:05:01Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
title A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
spellingShingle A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
Blanco, David
Exhaustivitat dels informes
Polítiques de la revista
Qualitat dels informes
Informes directrius
Enquesta
Barreres
Facilitadors
Exhaustividad de los informes
Políticas de la revista
Calidad de los informes
Informes directrices
Encuesta
Barreras
Facilitadores
Completeness of reporting
Journal policies
Quality of reporting
Reporting guidelines
Survey
Barriers
Facilitators
61
title_short A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
title_full A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
title_fullStr A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
title_full_unstemmed A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
title_sort A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Blanco, David
Hren, Darko
Kirkham, Jamie
Cobo, Erik
Schroter, Sara
author Blanco, David
author_facet Blanco, David
Hren, Darko
Kirkham, Jamie
Cobo, Erik
Schroter, Sara
author_role author
author2 Hren, Darko
Kirkham, Jamie
Cobo, Erik
Schroter, Sara
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Exhaustivitat dels informes
Polítiques de la revista
Qualitat dels informes
Informes directrius
Enquesta
Barreres
Facilitadors
Exhaustividad de los informes
Políticas de la revista
Calidad de los informes
Informes directrices
Encuesta
Barreras
Facilitadores
Completeness of reporting
Journal policies
Quality of reporting
Reporting guidelines
Survey
Barriers
Facilitators
61
topic Exhaustivitat dels informes
Polítiques de la revista
Qualitat dels informes
Informes directrius
Enquesta
Barreres
Facilitadors
Exhaustividad de los informes
Políticas de la revista
Calidad de los informes
Informes directrices
Encuesta
Barreras
Facilitadores
Completeness of reporting
Journal policies
Quality of reporting
Reporting guidelines
Survey
Barriers
Facilitators
61
description Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this survey
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358
https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358
https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv F1000Research
8
https://f1000research.com/articles/8-1682/v3
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 29
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv F1000 Research
publisher.none.fl_str_mv F1000 Research
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
instname:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
instname_str Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
reponame_str Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
collection Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869422551540695040
score 15,81155

Similares en LA Referencia