Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Scoping reviews can be used to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. They may also be undertaken as a precursor to a systematic review. Their popularity is on the rise as seen by the increasing frequency of published reviews now available. Consequently, senior editors of one of the flagship journals which publishes scoping review protocols and reviews have observed a number of issues related to the planning, conduct and reporting of these protocols and reviews that are frequently occurring.
Objectives:
To provide an account of the common issues editors of an academic journal encounter when reviewing scoping review protocols and reviews.
Methods:
A sample of scoping review protocols and reviews submitted to the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementations Reports (JBISRIR) (now known as JBI Evidence Synthesis) were examined along with the peer review/editor feedback provided to the authors. Common issues related to planning, conduct and reporting that led to a manuscript requiring major revision or rejection were extracted and collated.
Results:
In 2019 over 200 submissions were received by JBISRIR that were scoping review protocols or reviews; scoping review protocol submissions doubling from the previous year (161 from 80). Of these submissions, 36.6% of protocols were accepted as were 47.3% of reviews. Across both accepted and rejected manuscripts a number of issues were frequently identified. They related to: question development, rationale for the conduct of the review, the apriori description of how data will be presented, the exclusion of important information related to the concept of interest, the reporting of outcome data from the included studies (i.e. attempting to synthesize results to determine effect), and the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results of the review.
Conclusions:
Momentum for the conduct of scoping reviews is growing. Although the methodology and reporting standards associated with conducting scoping reviews has increased in terms of detailed guidance available to authors, there still appears to be areas where authors are struggling. Recommendations for authors as well as peer reviewers, editors and methodologists are provided.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: no consumer involvement in developing this abstract.
Scoping reviews can be used to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. They may also be undertaken as a precursor to a systematic review. Their popularity is on the rise as seen by the increasing frequency of published reviews now available. Consequently, senior editors of one of the flagship journals which publishes scoping review protocols and reviews have observed a number of issues related to the planning, conduct and reporting of these protocols and reviews that are frequently occurring.
Objectives:
To provide an account of the common issues editors of an academic journal encounter when reviewing scoping review protocols and reviews.
Methods:
A sample of scoping review protocols and reviews submitted to the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementations Reports (JBISRIR) (now known as JBI Evidence Synthesis) were examined along with the peer review/editor feedback provided to the authors. Common issues related to planning, conduct and reporting that led to a manuscript requiring major revision or rejection were extracted and collated.
Results:
In 2019 over 200 submissions were received by JBISRIR that were scoping review protocols or reviews; scoping review protocol submissions doubling from the previous year (161 from 80). Of these submissions, 36.6% of protocols were accepted as were 47.3% of reviews. Across both accepted and rejected manuscripts a number of issues were frequently identified. They related to: question development, rationale for the conduct of the review, the apriori description of how data will be presented, the exclusion of important information related to the concept of interest, the reporting of outcome data from the included studies (i.e. attempting to synthesize results to determine effect), and the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results of the review.
Conclusions:
Momentum for the conduct of scoping reviews is growing. Although the methodology and reporting standards associated with conducting scoping reviews has increased in terms of detailed guidance available to authors, there still appears to be areas where authors are struggling. Recommendations for authors as well as peer reviewers, editors and methodologists are provided.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: no consumer involvement in developing this abstract.