bs_bs_banner
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice ISSN 1365-2753
Choosing the right journal for your systematic review Marluci Betini MD,1 Enilze S. N. Volpato MD,1 Guilherme D. J. Anastácio MD,2 Renata T. B. G. de Faria MD2 and Regina El Dib PhD3,4 1
Librarian, Technical Division of Library and Documentation, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Medical Student, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 3 Assistant Professor, Anaesthesiology Department, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 4 Research Collaborator, McMaster Institute of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Keywords editorial policies, journal impact factor, medical manuscripts, periodicals as topic, systematic review Correspondence Dr Marluci Betini Technical Division of Library and Documentation Botucatu Medical School Distrito de Rubião Júnior Botucatu, SP 18618-970 Brazil E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Accepted for publication 6 May 2014 doi:10.1111/jep.12196
Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses. Methods In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63. Results We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. Conclusions The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication.
Introduction Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best evidence source for decision making in medical practice. They also require less financial resources and can be completed in a shorter time than clinical trials. Therefore, SRs have been increasingly required and sought out in the academic and scientific community. Researchers use the SR methodology as a tool to compile and evaluate information useful for their clinical practices and subsequently seek to disseminate their findings through publication [1]. The main reasons that authors seek to publish in higher impact factor (IF) journals are career advancement, the potential for grant awards and recognition in the scientific community, in addition to the usual goal of advancing of human health knowledge [2]. 834
This study aimed to identify the proportion of scientific journals that publish SRs in all health fields regardless of the clinical question and to correlate these findings with journal IFs. Furthermore, we computed whether the journal requires the evidencebased minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, such as PRISMA [3], MOOSE [4,5] or STARD [6].
Methods In our cross-sectional study, we selected and analysed the medical journals available at the site www.periodicos.capes.gov.br with an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) IF above 2.63. We chose this site because it covers a wide range of journals and our institution has free access to it. There are 8424 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports-ISI. Of these only 880 have higher 4
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 20 (2014) 834–836 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. Betini et al.
Journals publishing systematic reviews
Table 1 Number of scientific medical journals that publish systematic reviews and require the minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews Mean (95% CI)
Total analysed journals
622
100%
Median
Q1
Q3
Journals that publish SRs and mention SRs in the instructions for authors Journals that do not mention SRs in the instructions but do publish SRs Total journals that publish SRs Total journals that do not publish SRs Journals that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms Journals that do not require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms
135 300 435 187 118
21.60 48.34 69.94 30.06 27.00
– 5.019 5.091 6.126
– – 3.804 3.741 4.178
– – 3.114 2.976 3.286
– – 5.403 4.814 6.410
504
73.00
4.787
3.711
3.041
4.966
CI, confidence interval; SR, systematic review.
ISI-IF, while greater than 2.63 are 1916. We limited our research to the portal Capes, so we used a lower cut-off value to increase the sample size.
Data extraction After identifying the journals that meet the minimum IF criterion, the first step was to examine the instructions for authors section for any mention of the acceptance of SRs. If the journal did accept the submission of SRs, the next step was to verify whether they required that these manuscripts be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, namely, the PRISMA, MOOSE and STARD guidelines. If the instructions for authors did not explicitly mention SRs as an accepted article type for publication, we performed a search through the journal’s archives to verify whether the journal had published at least one SR in the past. The next step was to compute the IF of each journal regardless of whether it published SRs. We used the IF value from ISI published in Journal Citation Reports 2012 in which the data were separated by medical area, such as anaesthesiology, oncology, cardiology and endocrinology.
Statistical analysis We expressed the number of journals as totals and percentages, and considered a P-value of less than 0.05 to be statistically significant.
Results We analysed 622 scientific medical journals. A total of 435 journals publish SRs, but only 135 journals refer to SRs explicitly in the author’s instructions section, and just 118 journals require that the items be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. The statistics relating to the numbers of journals that publish SRs and request the minimum set of items for reporting in SRs are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
needs of the scientific research community. Furthermore, we define the ISI IF above 2.63, thus including the scientific journals of higher quality as well as titles of interest that are actually used by researchers. The search for the publication or non-publication of SRs comprised searching over the journals’ full content in addition to finding explicit mentions of SRs in the instructions for authors sections. This provided better access to the editorial policy actually practiced by the medical journal editors. This feature was effective because it established that all the medical areas studied had a large number of journals that publish SRs and did not mention them in the instructions for authors. Among the 435 journals that published SRs, only 135 explicitly mentioned their acceptance in the instructions for authors section, so that 70% of the journals presented a downgrade in editorial policy stated in the instructions for authors. Of the 135 journals that accepted the submission of SRs and cited their acceptance in the instructions for authors, 118 require the manuscripts to be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, namely, PRISMA, MOOSE and STARD guidelines. Three hundred journals do not mention their acceptance of SRs in their instructions to authors, and these journals therefore provide no guidance on the use of specific guidelines. Thus, among the 435 total journals that publish SRs, only 27.00% (118) require that the manuscripts be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making a comparative interpretation of their results difficult. With regard to the IF, we did not find any relevant difference between the IF median of the journals that do publish SRs (3.804) versus those that do not, although the latter figure is somewhat higher (3.741); however, the median IF of the journals that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific forms for reporting SRs (4.178) was greater than the IF of those not requiring it (3.711). The information collected for this study was organized and registered to help authors choose a journal in which to publish their SR manuscripts.
Discussion
Conclusion
We consider that the inclusion criteria for the journals in this study were comprehensive because these journals match the information
Relatively few journals require that SRs comply with the evidencebased minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
835
Journals publishing systematic reviews
M. Betini et al.
Table 2 Number of scientific medical journals that publish systematic reviews and require the minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews by medical area
Medical area
Journals
Number of journals that publish SRs (%)
General medicine Allergology and clinical immunology Anatomic pathology and clinical pathology laboratory medicine Anaesthesiology Cardiology: cardiovascular diseases Surgery Dermatology Infectious and parasitic diseases Endocrinology Physiatry, medical physics, rehabilitation Gastroenterology Geriatrics, gerontology Obstetrics and gynaecology Haematology Forensic medicine Nephrology, urology Neurology Ophthalmology Oncology Orthopaedics Otorhinolaryngology Paediatrics Pneumology Psychiatry Medical radiology, nuclear medicine, diagnostic imaging Rheumatology
128 55 45 15 58 41 17 65 55 15 40 12 26 28 2 33 141 15 75 17 9 16 25 84 26 18
85 (66.41) 34 (61.82) 18 (40.00) 15 (100.00) 45 (77.59) 39 (95.13) 16 (94.12) 46 (70.77) 40 (72.73) 13 (86.67) 37 (92.50) 7 (58.34) 25 (96.16) 21 (75.00) 0 28 (84.85) 96 (68.09) 13 (86.67) 56 (74.67) 14 (82.36) 7 (77.78) 15 (93.75) 21 (84.00) 63 (75.00) 19 (73.08) 17 (84.45)
Number of SRs that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms (%)
Mean of impact factor
23 (17.97) 6 (10.91) 3 (6.67) 6 (40.00) 16 (27.59) 10 (24.40) 8 (47.06) 12 (18.47) 12 (21.82) 2 (13.34) 9 (22.50) 0 16 (61.54) 5 (17.86) 0 11 (33.34) 27 (19.15) 3 (20.00) 14 (18.67) 5 (29.42) 2 (22.23) 7 (43.75) 8 (32.00) 16 (19.05) 4 (15.39) 10 (55.56)
5.919 6.593 5.159 4.989 4.847 3.556 4.875 6.196 5.133 3.443 4.995 3.556 4.476 4.463 3.133 4.298 4.766 4.564 4.885 3.267 5.103 4.515 4.632 4.671 4.330 5.500
SR, systematic review.
interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the IF of the journal and its acceptance and publication of SRs. We did not find any relevant difference between the mean or median IF of the journals that publish SRs and those that do not publish SRs. This work has enabled the production of a source of information that will be available on institutional web sites to search for medical journals that publish SRs together with their respective ISI IFs.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from The State of São Paulo Research Foundation – FAPESP.
836
References 1. Clarke, M. & Horton, R. (2001) Bringing it all together: LancetCochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet, 357 (9270), 1728. 2. Thompson, P. J. (2007) How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest, 132 (3), 1073–1076. 3. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Medicine, 3 (2), 123–130. 4. Stroup, D. F., Beerlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283 (15), 2008– 2012. 5. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., et al. (2004) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Family Practice, 21, 4–10. 6. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., et al. (2003) The STARD statement for reporting of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clinical Chemistry, 49 (1), 7–18.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice ISSN 1365-2753
Choosing the right journal for your systematic review Marluci Betini MD,1 Enilze S. N. Volpato MD,1 Guilherme D. J. Anastácio MD,2 Renata T. B. G. de Faria MD2 and Regina El Dib PhD3,4 1
Librarian, Technical Division of Library and Documentation, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 2 Medical Student, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 3 Assistant Professor, Anaesthesiology Department, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil 4 Research Collaborator, McMaster Institute of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Keywords editorial policies, journal impact factor, medical manuscripts, periodicals as topic, systematic review Correspondence Dr Marluci Betini Technical Division of Library and Documentation Botucatu Medical School Distrito de Rubião Júnior Botucatu, SP 18618-970 Brazil E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Accepted for publication 6 May 2014 doi:10.1111/jep.12196
Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses. Methods In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63. Results We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. Conclusions The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication.
Introduction Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best evidence source for decision making in medical practice. They also require less financial resources and can be completed in a shorter time than clinical trials. Therefore, SRs have been increasingly required and sought out in the academic and scientific community. Researchers use the SR methodology as a tool to compile and evaluate information useful for their clinical practices and subsequently seek to disseminate their findings through publication [1]. The main reasons that authors seek to publish in higher impact factor (IF) journals are career advancement, the potential for grant awards and recognition in the scientific community, in addition to the usual goal of advancing of human health knowledge [2]. 834
This study aimed to identify the proportion of scientific journals that publish SRs in all health fields regardless of the clinical question and to correlate these findings with journal IFs. Furthermore, we computed whether the journal requires the evidencebased minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, such as PRISMA [3], MOOSE [4,5] or STARD [6].
Methods In our cross-sectional study, we selected and analysed the medical journals available at the site www.periodicos.capes.gov.br with an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) IF above 2.63. We chose this site because it covers a wide range of journals and our institution has free access to it. There are 8424 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports-ISI. Of these only 880 have higher 4
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 20 (2014) 834–836 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. Betini et al.
Journals publishing systematic reviews
Table 1 Number of scientific medical journals that publish systematic reviews and require the minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews Mean (95% CI)
Total analysed journals
622
100%
Median
Q1
Q3
Journals that publish SRs and mention SRs in the instructions for authors Journals that do not mention SRs in the instructions but do publish SRs Total journals that publish SRs Total journals that do not publish SRs Journals that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms Journals that do not require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms
135 300 435 187 118
21.60 48.34 69.94 30.06 27.00
– 5.019 5.091 6.126
– – 3.804 3.741 4.178
– – 3.114 2.976 3.286
– – 5.403 4.814 6.410
504
73.00
4.787
3.711
3.041
4.966
CI, confidence interval; SR, systematic review.
ISI-IF, while greater than 2.63 are 1916. We limited our research to the portal Capes, so we used a lower cut-off value to increase the sample size.
Data extraction After identifying the journals that meet the minimum IF criterion, the first step was to examine the instructions for authors section for any mention of the acceptance of SRs. If the journal did accept the submission of SRs, the next step was to verify whether they required that these manuscripts be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, namely, the PRISMA, MOOSE and STARD guidelines. If the instructions for authors did not explicitly mention SRs as an accepted article type for publication, we performed a search through the journal’s archives to verify whether the journal had published at least one SR in the past. The next step was to compute the IF of each journal regardless of whether it published SRs. We used the IF value from ISI published in Journal Citation Reports 2012 in which the data were separated by medical area, such as anaesthesiology, oncology, cardiology and endocrinology.
Statistical analysis We expressed the number of journals as totals and percentages, and considered a P-value of less than 0.05 to be statistically significant.
Results We analysed 622 scientific medical journals. A total of 435 journals publish SRs, but only 135 journals refer to SRs explicitly in the author’s instructions section, and just 118 journals require that the items be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. The statistics relating to the numbers of journals that publish SRs and request the minimum set of items for reporting in SRs are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
needs of the scientific research community. Furthermore, we define the ISI IF above 2.63, thus including the scientific journals of higher quality as well as titles of interest that are actually used by researchers. The search for the publication or non-publication of SRs comprised searching over the journals’ full content in addition to finding explicit mentions of SRs in the instructions for authors sections. This provided better access to the editorial policy actually practiced by the medical journal editors. This feature was effective because it established that all the medical areas studied had a large number of journals that publish SRs and did not mention them in the instructions for authors. Among the 435 journals that published SRs, only 135 explicitly mentioned their acceptance in the instructions for authors section, so that 70% of the journals presented a downgrade in editorial policy stated in the instructions for authors. Of the 135 journals that accepted the submission of SRs and cited their acceptance in the instructions for authors, 118 require the manuscripts to be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, namely, PRISMA, MOOSE and STARD guidelines. Three hundred journals do not mention their acceptance of SRs in their instructions to authors, and these journals therefore provide no guidance on the use of specific guidelines. Thus, among the 435 total journals that publish SRs, only 27.00% (118) require that the manuscripts be in compliance with the evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making a comparative interpretation of their results difficult. With regard to the IF, we did not find any relevant difference between the IF median of the journals that do publish SRs (3.804) versus those that do not, although the latter figure is somewhat higher (3.741); however, the median IF of the journals that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific forms for reporting SRs (4.178) was greater than the IF of those not requiring it (3.711). The information collected for this study was organized and registered to help authors choose a journal in which to publish their SR manuscripts.
Discussion
Conclusion
We consider that the inclusion criteria for the journals in this study were comprehensive because these journals match the information
Relatively few journals require that SRs comply with the evidencebased minimum set of items for reporting in SRs, making
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
835
Journals publishing systematic reviews
M. Betini et al.
Table 2 Number of scientific medical journals that publish systematic reviews and require the minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews by medical area
Medical area
Journals
Number of journals that publish SRs (%)
General medicine Allergology and clinical immunology Anatomic pathology and clinical pathology laboratory medicine Anaesthesiology Cardiology: cardiovascular diseases Surgery Dermatology Infectious and parasitic diseases Endocrinology Physiatry, medical physics, rehabilitation Gastroenterology Geriatrics, gerontology Obstetrics and gynaecology Haematology Forensic medicine Nephrology, urology Neurology Ophthalmology Oncology Orthopaedics Otorhinolaryngology Paediatrics Pneumology Psychiatry Medical radiology, nuclear medicine, diagnostic imaging Rheumatology
128 55 45 15 58 41 17 65 55 15 40 12 26 28 2 33 141 15 75 17 9 16 25 84 26 18
85 (66.41) 34 (61.82) 18 (40.00) 15 (100.00) 45 (77.59) 39 (95.13) 16 (94.12) 46 (70.77) 40 (72.73) 13 (86.67) 37 (92.50) 7 (58.34) 25 (96.16) 21 (75.00) 0 28 (84.85) 96 (68.09) 13 (86.67) 56 (74.67) 14 (82.36) 7 (77.78) 15 (93.75) 21 (84.00) 63 (75.00) 19 (73.08) 17 (84.45)
Number of SRs that require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms (%)
Mean of impact factor
23 (17.97) 6 (10.91) 3 (6.67) 6 (40.00) 16 (27.59) 10 (24.40) 8 (47.06) 12 (18.47) 12 (21.82) 2 (13.34) 9 (22.50) 0 16 (61.54) 5 (17.86) 0 11 (33.34) 27 (19.15) 3 (20.00) 14 (18.67) 5 (29.42) 2 (22.23) 7 (43.75) 8 (32.00) 16 (19.05) 4 (15.39) 10 (55.56)
5.919 6.593 5.159 4.989 4.847 3.556 4.875 6.196 5.133 3.443 4.995 3.556 4.476 4.463 3.133 4.298 4.766 4.564 4.885 3.267 5.103 4.515 4.632 4.671 4.330 5.500
SR, systematic review.
interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the IF of the journal and its acceptance and publication of SRs. We did not find any relevant difference between the mean or median IF of the journals that publish SRs and those that do not publish SRs. This work has enabled the production of a source of information that will be available on institutional web sites to search for medical journals that publish SRs together with their respective ISI IFs.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from The State of São Paulo Research Foundation – FAPESP.
836
References 1. Clarke, M. & Horton, R. (2001) Bringing it all together: LancetCochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet, 357 (9270), 1728. 2. Thompson, P. J. (2007) How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest, 132 (3), 1073–1076. 3. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Medicine, 3 (2), 123–130. 4. Stroup, D. F., Beerlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283 (15), 2008– 2012. 5. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., et al. (2004) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Family Practice, 21, 4–10. 6. Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., et al. (2003) The STARD statement for reporting of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clinical Chemistry, 49 (1), 7–18.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
