Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Research synthesis has growing impact in evidencebased
medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SR) represent a cornerstone of research synthesis and require scientific rigour. Nevertheless, SR are often criticised as secondary research and not granted the status of original research. Journal editors are gatekeepers in the publication process. Their appraisal of a study design may reflect but also influence which value it receives in the scientific community. Objectives: To investigate the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SR and their value for publication. Methods: We identified all 118 journals labelled as core clinical journals in Pubmed s Journal Database in April 2009. The journals editors were surveyed by email in April August 2009 and asked whether they 1.) consider SR original research projects; 2.) publish SR; and 3.) for which article section they would consider a SR manuscript. Results: Editors of 65 journals (55%) responded to the first email or the reminder (Table 1): Editors from general medical journals responded more frequently than editors from speciality journals. Most respondents consider SR original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) publish SR. Some editors regarded use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for consideration of SR as original research. Journals place SR in various sections ranging from Review to Feature article . Conclusions: Currently, editors of most core clinical journals regard SR as original research. However, individual commentaries suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. Based on these results a debate about the definition of original research in the context of SR is warranted. Appropriate academic recognition of high-quality SR would provide incentives for researchers to conduct them and for funders to support them.
medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SR) represent a cornerstone of research synthesis and require scientific rigour. Nevertheless, SR are often criticised as secondary research and not granted the status of original research. Journal editors are gatekeepers in the publication process. Their appraisal of a study design may reflect but also influence which value it receives in the scientific community. Objectives: To investigate the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SR and their value for publication. Methods: We identified all 118 journals labelled as core clinical journals in Pubmed s Journal Database in April 2009. The journals editors were surveyed by email in April August 2009 and asked whether they 1.) consider SR original research projects; 2.) publish SR; and 3.) for which article section they would consider a SR manuscript. Results: Editors of 65 journals (55%) responded to the first email or the reminder (Table 1): Editors from general medical journals responded more frequently than editors from speciality journals. Most respondents consider SR original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) publish SR. Some editors regarded use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for consideration of SR as original research. Journals place SR in various sections ranging from Review to Feature article . Conclusions: Currently, editors of most core clinical journals regard SR as original research. However, individual commentaries suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. Based on these results a debate about the definition of original research in the context of SR is warranted. Appropriate academic recognition of high-quality SR would provide incentives for researchers to conduct them and for funders to support them.
PDF