Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 1;110(1):63-71.
doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1273.

Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample

Johanna Goldberg  1 , Lindsay M Boyce  2 , Céline Soudant  3 , Kendra Godwin  4
Affiliations

Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample

Johanna Goldberg et al. J Med Libr Assoc. .

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Keywords: author instructions; journal requirements; meta-analysis; publishing; research methodology; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Author guideline scores by counts and percentage
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016. Jun 23;21(4):125–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Halevi G, Pinotti R. Systematic reviews: characteristics and impact. Pub Res Q. 2020. Dec;36(4):523–37.
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271–8. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999. Nov 27;354(9193):1896–1900. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009. Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources