A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
Publication date
2019ISSN
2046-1402
Abstract
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
Document Type
Article
Document version
Published version
Language
English
Subject (CDU)
61 - Medical sciences
Keywords
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
Pages
29
Publisher
F1000 Research
Collection
8
Is part of
F1000Research
Citation
Blanco, David; Hren, Darko; Kirkham, Jamie [et al.]. A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. F1000Research, 2019, 8, 1682. Disponible en: <https://f1000research.com/articles/8-1682/v3>. Fecha de acceso: 6 jul. 2022. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.20556.3
Grant agreement number
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207
Link to the related item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Ciències de la Salut [745]
Rights
© 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.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/