The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Qual Health Res. 2021 Apr;31(5):819-821. doi: 10.1177/1049732321994114.
Using checklists in manuscripts are perceived to indicate quality, transparency, and rigor. Generally, these checklists consist of a list of all of the strategies that may be used to ensure rigor and transparency. Beside each item, there is usually a box to check (or tick) to indicate whether a component is present, and a space on which to note the page each item is listed in the manuscript. Some of these forms also include space for the author to make brief comments to the reviewer. The intent is that the checklist guides the review process to ensure that all components are present in the article, and therefore, that the article is solid enough to publish.However, these checklists consist only of technical/mechanical management of the creation and sorting of data. These lists ignore the value of the of the research: They do not address the originality, the substance, the contribution, and the potential results to the actual topic-which is after all the purpose of the project itself.Paradoxically, these checklist reviews are undermining the quality of qualitative inquiry. In seeking , the criteria for systematic reviews, clinical trials, and evidence have spilled over to represent quality criteria for all qualitative research. They are becoming commonplace for evaluating qualitative research by journal editors, directing the review process, and subsequent evaluation of the research. Of greatest concern is that checklists items are being used by authors themselves to represent their actual text (e.g., "data were saturated"), and the items for completing these forms are read by the reviewers and editors in lieu of reading the article itself (e.g., for signs of "saturation"). Furthermore, the use of these criteria by authors/researchers to guide the conduct of their research, yet meeting all these criteria, whether relevant or pertinent or necessary for their project, and may even invalidate the findings. In this way, these criteria are redefining processes of qualitative inquiry.
在稿件中使用清单被认为可以表明质量、透明度和严谨性。通常，这些清单由一份可能用于确保严谨性和透明度的所有策略的列表组成。在每个项目旁边，通常有一个框用于勾选（或打勾）以指示是否存在某个组件，并在其中记录每个项目在稿件中列出的页码。其中一些表格还包括供作者向审稿人发表简要评论的空间。其意图是清单指导审查过程，以确保文章中包含所有组件，因此文章足够扎实可以发表。然而，这些清单仅包含创建和整理数据的技术/机械管理。这些清单忽略了研究的价值：它们没有解决研究的原创性、实质、贡献以及对实际主题的潜在结果——这毕竟是项目本身的目的。矛盾的是，这些清单审查正在破坏定性研究的质量。在寻求系统审查、临床试验和证据的标准时，这些标准已经溢出，成为所有定性研究的质量标准。它们已成为期刊编辑、指导审查过程以及随后评估研究的评估定性研究的常见方法。最令人担忧的是，清单项目被作者自己用来代表他们的实际文本（例如，“数据已经饱和”），并且审稿人和编辑会阅读这些项目来代替阅读文章本身（例如，寻找“饱和”的迹象）。此外，作者/研究人员使用这些标准来指导他们的研究，但无论这些标准是否与他们的项目相关、必要或相关，他们都可能符合所有这些标准，甚至可能使研究结果无效。通过这种方式，这些标准正在重新定义定性探究的过程。
