Titre
Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.
Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Meerpohl, J.J.
Auteure/Auteur
Krnic Martinic, M.
Auteure/Auteur
von Elm, E.
Auteure/Auteur
Herrle, F.
Auteure/Auteur
Marusic, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Puljak, L.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les unités
ISSN
2044-6055
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2019-08-30
Volume
9
Numéro
8
Première page
e029704
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research.
We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.
All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.
We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.
We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.
The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.
We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.
All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.
We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.
We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.
The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_80A6BA18D252
PMID
Open Access
Oui
Date de création
2019-09-17T20:04:33.497Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T23:35:38Z
Fichier(s)![Vignette d'image]()
En cours de chargement...
Nom
e029704.full.pdf
Version du manuscrit
preprint
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Taille
248.19 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
PID Serval
serval:BIB_80A6BA18D252.P001
URN
urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_80A6BA18D2527
Somme de contrôle
(MD5):b442f51b4e9a84f2f7f629af7c2699e7