Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Due to the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as a source of decision making in health care, there is an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. The main reasons that authors seek to publish in higher impact factor journals are career advancement, grant achievements and well-known aspects in the scientific community besides the advance of health human knowledge.
Objectives:
To determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to its impact factor (> 2.8) and to determine whether those journals require tools with the aim of improving the reporting of SRs and meta-analyses.
Methods:
In our cross-sectional study of how to choose the right journal for your systematic review we selected and analysed the scientific journals that present a minimum of 2.63 ISI impact factor available in an electronic library.
Results:
We analyzed 1262 scientific journals. A total of 925 (73%) scientific journals published SRs, of which 301 (24%) mention the acceptance of this type of article in the instructions for authors section. The remaining 624 (49%) scientific journals do not mention in the instructions for authors section the acceptance of such articles, but they publish SRs. Only 258 (28%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific forms for reporting SRs.
Conclusions:
A significant number of journals analysed in this research publish SRs. However, the editorial policy from these journals seems to be outdated because the majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs are in accordance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making interpretation of their findings challenging. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance and publication of SRs.
Due to the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as a source of decision making in health care, there is an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. The main reasons that authors seek to publish in higher impact factor journals are career advancement, grant achievements and well-known aspects in the scientific community besides the advance of health human knowledge.
Objectives:
To determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to its impact factor (> 2.8) and to determine whether those journals require tools with the aim of improving the reporting of SRs and meta-analyses.
Methods:
In our cross-sectional study of how to choose the right journal for your systematic review we selected and analysed the scientific journals that present a minimum of 2.63 ISI impact factor available in an electronic library.
Results:
We analyzed 1262 scientific journals. A total of 925 (73%) scientific journals published SRs, of which 301 (24%) mention the acceptance of this type of article in the instructions for authors section. The remaining 624 (49%) scientific journals do not mention in the instructions for authors section the acceptance of such articles, but they publish SRs. Only 258 (28%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific forms for reporting SRs.
Conclusions:
A significant number of journals analysed in this research publish SRs. However, the editorial policy from these journals seems to be outdated because the majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs are in accordance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making interpretation of their findings challenging. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance and publication of SRs.