Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Improving the quality of toxicology and environ...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews : What journal editors can do. / Whaley, P.; Blaauboer, B.J.; Brozek, J.; Cohen Hubal, E.A.; Hair, K.; Kacew, S.; Knudsen, T.B.; Kwiatkowski, C.F.; Mellor, D.T.; Olshan, A.F.; Page, M.J.; Rooney, A.A.; Radke, E.G.; Shamseer, L.; Tsaioun, K.; Tugwell, P.; Wikoff, D.; Woodruff, T.J.

In: ALTEX, Vol. 38, No. 3, 19.07.2021, p. 513-522.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Whaley, P, Blaauboer, BJ, Brozek, J, Cohen Hubal, EA, Hair, K, Kacew, S, Knudsen, TB, Kwiatkowski, CF, Mellor, DT, Olshan, AF, Page, MJ, Rooney, AA, Radke, EG, Shamseer, L, Tsaioun, K, Tugwell, P, Wikoff, D & Woodruff, TJ 2021, 'Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do', ALTEX, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 513-522. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2106111

APA

Whaley, P., Blaauboer, B. J., Brozek, J., Cohen Hubal, E. A., Hair, K., Kacew, S., Knudsen, T. B., Kwiatkowski, C. F., Mellor, D. T., Olshan, A. F., Page, M. J., Rooney, A. A., Radke, E. G., Shamseer, L., Tsaioun, K., Tugwell, P., Wikoff, D., & Woodruff, T. J. (2021). Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do. ALTEX, 38(3), 513-522. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2106111

Vancouver

Author

Whaley, P. ; Blaauboer, B.J. ; Brozek, J. ; Cohen Hubal, E.A. ; Hair, K. ; Kacew, S. ; Knudsen, T.B. ; Kwiatkowski, C.F. ; Mellor, D.T. ; Olshan, A.F. ; Page, M.J. ; Rooney, A.A. ; Radke, E.G. ; Shamseer, L. ; Tsaioun, K. ; Tugwell, P. ; Wikoff, D. ; Woodruff, T.J. / Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews : What journal editors can do. In: ALTEX. 2021 ; Vol. 38, No. 3. pp. 513-522.

Bibtex

@article{e425d09e702244c0a2a1e861f4163e61,
title = "Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do",
abstract = "Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.",
keywords = "environmental health, epidemiology, research standards, systematic review, toxicology, editor, editorial, human, physician, prevalence, quality control, workflow",
author = "P. Whaley and B.J. Blaauboer and J. Brozek and {Cohen Hubal}, E.A. and K. Hair and S. Kacew and T.B. Knudsen and C.F. Kwiatkowski and D.T. Mellor and A.F. Olshan and M.J. Page and A.A. Rooney and E.G. Radke and L. Shamseer and K. Tsaioun and P. Tugwell and D. Wikoff and T.J. Woodruff",
year = "2021",
month = jul,
day = "19",
doi = "10.14573/altex.2106111",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "513--522",
journal = "ALTEX",
issn = "1868-596X",
publisher = "NLM (Medline)",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews

T2 - What journal editors can do

AU - Whaley, P.

AU - Blaauboer, B.J.

AU - Brozek, J.

AU - Cohen Hubal, E.A.

AU - Hair, K.

AU - Kacew, S.

AU - Knudsen, T.B.

AU - Kwiatkowski, C.F.

AU - Mellor, D.T.

AU - Olshan, A.F.

AU - Page, M.J.

AU - Rooney, A.A.

AU - Radke, E.G.

AU - Shamseer, L.

AU - Tsaioun, K.

AU - Tugwell, P.

AU - Wikoff, D.

AU - Woodruff, T.J.

PY - 2021/7/19

Y1 - 2021/7/19

N2 - Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.

AB - Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.

KW - environmental health

KW - epidemiology

KW - research standards

KW - systematic review

KW - toxicology

KW - editor

KW - editorial

KW - human

KW - physician

KW - prevalence

KW - quality control

KW - workflow

U2 - 10.14573/altex.2106111

DO - 10.14573/altex.2106111

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

SP - 513

EP - 522

JO - ALTEX

JF - ALTEX

SN - 1868-596X

IS - 3

ER -