Pretražite po imenu i prezimenu autora, mentora, urednika, prevoditelja

Napredna pretraga

Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1033805

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study


Krnic Martinic, Marina; Meerpohl, Joerg J; von Elm, Erik; Herrle, Florian; Marusic, Ana; Puljak, Livia
Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study // BMJ Open, 9 (2019), 8; e029704-e029704 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)


CROSBI ID: 1033805 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca

Naslov
Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study

Autori
Krnic Martinic, Marina ; Meerpohl, Joerg J ; von Elm, Erik ; Herrle, Florian ; Marusic, Ana ; Puljak, Livia

Izvornik
BMJ Open (2044-6055) 9 (2019), 8; E029704-e029704

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni

Ključne riječi
systematic review, editors

Sažetak
OBJECTIVES: In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research. DESIGN: We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors. PARTICIPANTS: All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals. METHODS: We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017 ; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study. RESULTS: We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty. CONCLUSION: The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

Izvorni jezik
Engleski

Znanstvena područja
Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita



POVEZANOST RADA


Ustanove:
KBC Split,
Medicinski fakultet, Split,
Hrvatsko katoličko sveučilište, Zagreb

Profili:

Avatar Url Ana Marušić (autor)

Avatar Url Livia Puljak (autor)

Avatar Url Marina Krnić Martinić (autor)

Poveznice na cjeloviti tekst rada:

doi

Citiraj ovu publikaciju:

Krnic Martinic, Marina; Meerpohl, Joerg J; von Elm, Erik; Herrle, Florian; Marusic, Ana; Puljak, Livia
Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study // BMJ Open, 9 (2019), 8; e029704-e029704 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)
Krnic Martinic, M., Meerpohl, J., von Elm, E., Herrle, F., Marusic, A. & Puljak, L. (2019) Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open, 9 (8), e029704-e029704 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704.
@article{article, author = {Krnic Martinic, Marina and Meerpohl, Joerg J and von Elm, Erik and Herrle, Florian and Marusic, Ana and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2019}, pages = {e029704-e029704}, DOI = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704}, keywords = {systematic review, editors}, journal = {BMJ Open}, doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704}, volume = {9}, number = {8}, issn = {2044-6055}, title = {Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study}, keyword = {systematic review, editors} }
@article{article, author = {Krnic Martinic, Marina and Meerpohl, Joerg J and von Elm, Erik and Herrle, Florian and Marusic, Ana and Puljak, Livia}, year = {2019}, pages = {e029704-e029704}, DOI = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704}, keywords = {systematic review, editors}, journal = {BMJ Open}, doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704}, volume = {9}, number = {8}, issn = {2044-6055}, title = {Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study}, keyword = {systematic review, editors} }

Časopis indeksira:


  • Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)
    • Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXP)
    • SCI-EXP, SSCI i/ili A&HCI
  • Scopus
  • MEDLINE


Citati:





    Contrast
    Increase Font
    Decrease Font
    Dyslexic Font