A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

David Blanco,Erik Cobo,Jamie J Kirkham,Darko Hren,Sara Schroter

doi:10.12688/f1000research.20556.1

Abstract

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

Highlights

Transparent and accurate reporting of research is essential for increasing the usability of available research evidence[1]
Most editors agreed that the most effective way to improve adherence to Reporting guidelines (RGs) is for journals to involve trained editors or administrative staff
Interventions targeting these stakeholders were considered to be difficult to implement for most journals, either because of logistic or resource issues

Summary

Introduction

Transparent and accurate reporting of research is essential for increasing the usability of available research evidence[1]. Since the inception in 1996 of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)[2], more than 400 RGs for different study types, data, and clinical areas have been developed These RGs can be found in the library of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network[1]. Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. Hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion