Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
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 -