The EQUATOR Network, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621. Epub 2012 Apr 27.
Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them.
We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains).
Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals.
Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/).
稿件的预发表同行评议应该提高研究出版物对可能希望将研究结果用于临床护理或卫生决策的读者的价值。许多发表的医学专业研究都没有用处,可能具有误导性、浪费性甚至有害。报告指南是帮助作者更好地准备手稿的工具,还可以帮助同行评审员评估它们。我们检查了期刊对同行评审员的指导,以了解评审员是否以及如何被鼓励使用它们。
我们调查了麦马斯特名单上的 116 种期刊的网站。主要结果是 1)识别在线同行评审员指南,2)指南中是否存在或不存在关键领域:期刊物流、评审员礼仪和处理稿件内容(11 个领域)。
只有 116 种期刊中的 41 种(35%)提供了在线说明。所有 41 种都指导了评审员了解他们的评审流程的物流,38 种(93%)概述了预期的行为标准,39 种(95%)包含了评估稿件内容的指导。对于评审员如何评估稿件内容,在线说明在明确指导方面存在很大差异。近一半的在线说明 19/41(46%)提到了报告指南,通常只是作为暗示它们可能有用或询问作者是否遵循它们的一般性陈述,而不是关于如何使用它们的明确说明。所有 19 种都提到了报告随机试验的 CONSORT,但很少提到 CONSORT 扩展。PRISMA、QUOROM(PRISMA 的前身)、STARD、STROBE 和 MOOSE 被几个期刊提到。没有其他报告指南被超过两种期刊提到。
尽管近一半的说明提到了报告指南,但它们在提高研究出版物质量方面的价值尚未得到充分实现。期刊有责任支持同行评审员。我们提出了一些建议,包括更广泛地参考 EQUATOR 网络在线图书馆(www.equator-network.org/)。