Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBlanco, David
dc.contributor.authorHren, Darko
dc.contributor.authorKirkham, Jamie
dc.contributor.authorCobo, Erik
dc.contributor.authorSchroter, Sara
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-06T16:56:18Z
dc.date.available2022-07-06T16:56:18Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationBlanco, 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.20556.3ca
dc.identifier.issn2046-1402ca
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3358
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 surveyen
dc.format.extent29ca
dc.language.isoengca
dc.publisherF1000 Researchca
dc.relation.ispartofF1000Researchca
dc.relation.ispartofseries8
dc.relation.urihttps://f1000research.com/articles/8-1682/v3ca
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.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.otherExhaustivitat dels informesca
dc.subject.otherPolítiques de la revistaca
dc.subject.otherQualitat dels informesca
dc.subject.otherInformes directriusca
dc.subject.otherEnquestaca
dc.subject.otherBarreresca
dc.subject.otherFacilitadorsca
dc.subject.otherExhaustividad de los informeses
dc.subject.otherPolíticas de la revistaes
dc.subject.otherCalidad de los informeses
dc.subject.otherInformes directriceses
dc.subject.otherEncuestaes
dc.subject.otherBarrerases
dc.subject.otherFacilitadoreses
dc.subject.otherCompleteness of reportingen
dc.subject.otherJournal policiesen
dc.subject.otherQuality of reportingen
dc.subject.otherReporting guidelinesen
dc.subject.otherSurveyen
dc.subject.otherBarriersen
dc.subject.otherFacilitatorsen
dc.titleA survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelinesen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleca
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionca
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapca
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207ca
dc.subject.udc61ca
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20556.3ca


Files in this item

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 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/