Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample.
Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With...
| Publicado en: | Journal of the Medical Library Association Vol. 110; no. 1; pp. 63 - 72 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
University of Pittsburgh, University Library System
Jan2022
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=155262511&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 155262511 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15365050 PI8 jtl: Journal of the Medical Library Association issn: 15365050 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan2022 vid: 110 iid: 1 pid: 60406 pub: University of Pittsburgh, University Library System place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 155262511 155262511 155262511 10.5195/jmla.2022.1273 155262511 ppf: 63 ppct: 9 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample. aug: au: Goldberg, Johanna Boyce, Lindsay M. Soudant, Céline Godwin, Kendra affil: Research Informationist, Medical Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY sug: subj: Systematic Review Meta Analysis Practice Guidelines Evaluation Authors Electronic Publications Library Services Human Research Methodology Journal Impact Factor Publishing Quality of Care Research Librarians Professional Role ab: Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality. Methods: A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014-2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment. Results: The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth. Conclusions: Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|