Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035732. Epub 2012 May 1.
Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.
We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.
The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.
Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.
使用系统和严格的方法综合研究证据已成为循证医学和知识转化的一个关键特征。系统评价（SR）可能包含也可能不包含荟萃分析，这取决于可用数据的适宜性。它们经常被批评为“二次研究”，并被剥夺原始研究的地位。科学期刊在出版过程中起着重要的作用。它们如何评估某一类型的研究影响该研究在科学界的地位。我们调查了核心临床期刊编辑对 SR 的态度及其出版价值。
我们确定了美国国立医学图书馆在 2009 年 4 月标记为“核心临床期刊”的 118 种期刊。这些期刊的编辑在 2009 年通过电子邮件接受了调查，询问他们是否认为 SR 是原始研究项目；他们是否发表 SR；以及他们会考虑将 SR 手稿提交给期刊的哪个部分。
65 种期刊（55%）的编辑做出了回应。大多数受访者认为 SR 是原始研究（71%），几乎所有期刊（93%）都发表了 SR。一些编辑将 Cochrane 方法或荟萃分析的使用视为质量标准；对于一些受访者来说，这些标准是将 SR 视为原始研究的前提。期刊将 SR 放在不同的部分，如“综述”或“专题文章”。对未回复期刊的特征描述表明，大约三分之二的期刊确实发表系统评价。
目前，大多数核心临床期刊的编辑都认为 SR 是原始研究。我们的研究结果受到未回复率为 45%的限制。个别评论表明，这是一个灰色地带，态度差异很大。有必要就 SR 背景下的“原始研究”定义进行辩论。
