A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
Rights accessOpen Access
Except where otherwise noted, content on this work is licensed under a Creative Commons license : Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain
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
CitationBlanco, D. [et al.]. A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. "F1000 Research Ltd", 24 Setembre 2019, vol. 8, p. 1682:1-1682: 21.