Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore views of authors of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) toward publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles. Study Design and SettingContact persons of all PROSPERO records for non-Cochrane SRs registered in 2018 (N = 12,531) were invited to participate in an anonymous 5-minute online survey that was administered through SurveyMonkey. The main question addressed SR authors’ views toward publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles. Data were analyzed descriptively. ResultsIn total, 4,223 (33.7%) of 12,531 invitees responded, of which 3,739 (88.5%) completed the survey. Almost half of the international respondents had published or planned to publish a protocol for the SR described in their PROSPERO record as a peer-reviewed article (1,811/4,054; 44.7%). Most respondents agreed that publishing a protocol in a peer-reviewed journal increases SR quality as reviewers get external feedback from peer reviewers (2,899/3,739; 77.5%) but at the same time agreed that it is not necessary if the SR is registered in PROSPERO (2,399/3,739; 64.2%). ConclusionSR authors seem to have inconsistent views toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles, and many seem to consider registration in PROSPERO (without peer review) sufficient. Hence, awareness about the benefits of publishing protocols as a peer-reviewed article in addition to registration in PROSPERO should be raised.