Suppr超能文献

补充材料在生物医学期刊文章中的作用:对作者、审稿人和读者的调查

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers.

作者信息

Price Amy, Schroter Sara, Clarke Mike, McAneney Helen

机构信息

Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

The BMJ, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 24;8(9):e021753. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.

RESULTS

We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02961036.

摘要

目的

许多期刊允许作者提交补充材料与文章一同发表。我们从作者、同行评审人员和读者的角度探讨这些材料在生物医学期刊文章中的价值、用途及作用。

设计与背景

我们于2016年11月至12月对17种BMJ出版集团旗下不同专业的期刊的通讯作者和同行评审人员进行了在线调查。

参与者

参与者被要求回应三种调查之一:作为作者、同行评审人员或读者。

结果

我们共收到2872份回复,占20340份邀请的14%:作者819份,占6892份邀请的12%;同行评审人员1142份,占6682份邀请的17%;读者911份,占6766份邀请的14%。大多数作者提交了补充材料(711/819,87%),80%(724/911)的读者表示在上一篇文章中阅读过补充材料,而95%(1086/1142)的评审人员表示有时会看到这些材料。额外的数据表是最常见的补充材料(作者:74%;评审人员:89%;读者:67%)。每组中的大多数人表示额外的表格对读者最有用(61%-77%);20%-36%的人表示对同行评审人员最有用,3%-4%的人表示对期刊编辑最有用。清单和报告指南的情况则相反:每组中更高比例的人认为这些对期刊编辑最有用。所有三组都赞成在期刊网站上发表额外的表格和图表(80%-83%),每组中不到4%的人回应说这些不需要提供。约五分之一(16%-23%)的人回应说原始研究数据应在期刊网站上提供,而24%-33%的人表示这些材料不应在任何地方提供。

结论

作者、同行评审人员和读者都认为补充材料是有用的。补充表格和图表在阅读方面比报告清单或原始数据更受青睐,但在研究复制方面并非如此。期刊应考虑补充材料的作用、资源成本和战略布局,以确保最佳使用并减少浪费。

试验注册号

NCT02961036。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44ab/6157527/df6c172c7e81/bmjopen-2018-021753f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验