首页|Reporting Policies in Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study of the Current State and Case for Standardization
Reporting Policies in Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study of the Current State and Case for Standardization
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NSTL
Elsevier
BACKGROUND: Reporting quality within the neurosurgical literature is low, limiting the ability of journals to act as gatekeepers for evidence-based neurosurgical care. Journal policies during article submission aim to improve reporting quality. We conducted a meta-science study characterizing the reporting policies of neurosurgical journals and other related peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: Journals were retrieved in 7 searches using Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar. Characteristics, impact metrics, and submission policies were extracted. RESULTS: Of 486 results, 54 journals were included, including 27 neurosur-gical and 27 related topical journals. Thirty-eight (70.4%) adopted authorship guidelines and 20 (37.0%) disclosure standards of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Twenty-six (48.1%) required data availability statement and 33 (61.1%) clinical trials registration. Twenty-one (38.9%) required and 11 (20.4%) recommended adherence to reporting guidelines. Twenty (37.0%) endorsed EQUATOR network guidelines. PRISMA was mentioned by 30 (55.6%) journals, CONSORT by 28 (51.9%), and STROBE by 18 (33.3%). Among neurosur-gical journals, factors associated with a requirement or recommendation to follow reporting guidelines among neurosurgical journals included impact factor (P = 0.0013), Article Influence Score (P = 0.0236), SCImago h-index (P = 0.0152), SCImago journal rank (P = 0.002), and CiteScore (P = 0.0023), as well as recommendations pertaining to International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (P = 0.0085), ORCID (P = 0.014), clinical trials registration (P = 0.0369), or data availability statement (P = 0.0047). CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE delineations were significantly associated with the mention of another guideline (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgical journal submission policies are inconsistent. Frameworks to improve reporting quality are uncommonly used. Increasing rigor and standardization of reporting policies across journals publishers may improve quality.
NSTL
Elsevier
