Santero Marilina, Menai Samanta Díaz
Universitat Autònoma Barcelona International Consultant WHO Barcelona España.
Universidad Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Argentina.
Colomb Med (Cali). 2024 Dec 30;55(4):e4006597. doi: 10.25100/cm.v55i4.6597. eCollection 2024 Oct-Dec.
Journals have experienced a significant rise in submissions of systematic reviews and other types of reviews that often fall short of acceptable quality standards. These shortcomings typically stem from insufficient rigor in their methodology, reporting, or critical appraisal. As a result, these submissions are frequently rejected raising concerns about the standards authors are following when preparing such work. This growing trend of low-quality reviews not only places a burden on editorial teams but also poses a risk to the scientific community by potentially disseminating flawed or unreliable conclusions. Ensuring that articles maintain high standards is crucial for preserving the integrity of the scientific literature and facilitating evidence-based decision-making. In an effort to address this problem, this viewpoint editorial aims to offer concepts and recommendations on available tools for future authors to improve the quality of their reviews, as well as to guide readers and potential journal reviewers on how to critically interpret these articles.
Colomb Med (Cali). 2024-12-30
Ultraschall Med. 2016-8
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014-7-5
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
J Korean Med Sci. 2024-8-5
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017-10
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013-10-15
Health Res Policy Syst. 2023-12-18
Syst Rev. 2023-6-8
Respir Care. 2023-8
BMJ Med. 2022-11-22
J Lipid Atheroscler. 2023-1
Syst Rev. 2022-1-8