dc.contributor.author | Blanco, David | |
dc.contributor.author | Hren, Darko | |
dc.contributor.author | Kirkham, Jamie | |
dc.contributor.author | Cobo, Erik | |
dc.contributor.author | Schroter, Sara | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-06T16:56:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-07-06T16:56:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.identifier.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 | ca |
dc.identifier.issn | 2046-1402 | ca |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358 | |
dc.description.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 | en |
dc.format.extent | 29 | ca |
dc.language.iso | eng | ca |
dc.publisher | F1000 Research | ca |
dc.relation.ispartof | F1000Research | ca |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | 8 | |
dc.relation.uri | https://f1000research.com/articles/8-1682/v3 | ca |
dc.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. | en |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.subject.other | Exhaustivitat dels informes | ca |
dc.subject.other | Polítiques de la revista | ca |
dc.subject.other | Qualitat dels informes | ca |
dc.subject.other | Informes directrius | ca |
dc.subject.other | Enquesta | ca |
dc.subject.other | Barreres | ca |
dc.subject.other | Facilitadors | ca |
dc.subject.other | Exhaustividad de los informes | es |
dc.subject.other | Políticas de la revista | es |
dc.subject.other | Calidad de los informes | es |
dc.subject.other | Informes directrices | es |
dc.subject.other | Encuesta | es |
dc.subject.other | Barreras | es |
dc.subject.other | Facilitadores | es |
dc.subject.other | Completeness of reporting | en |
dc.subject.other | Journal policies | en |
dc.subject.other | Quality of reporting | en |
dc.subject.other | Reporting guidelines | en |
dc.subject.other | Survey | en |
dc.subject.other | Barriers | en |
dc.subject.other | Facilitators | en |
dc.title | A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines | en |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | ca |
dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | ca |
dc.rights.accessLevel | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.embargo.terms | cap | ca |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207 | ca |
dc.subject.udc | 61 | ca |
dc.identifier.doi | https://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3 | ca |