Summary Objectives The purpose of this evidence‐based review is to identify and describe the interventions that have been implemented to reduce waiting times for major elective surgery. Methods Scoping review and presentation of the results according to the SUPPORT tools. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SciELO, DARE‐HTA, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria for research design were comprehensive. Results We identified 5200 records. After eliminating duplicates and screening by title and abstract, 171 records remained for full‐text assessment, of which 12 were ultimately included for this review because they reported specific interventions and 96 records were included for further reference. The included studies show significant variability regarding elective procedures, population, and type of provider, as well as in the characteristics of the interventions and the settings. All the studies had methodological limitations. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. Conclusions According to the evidence found for this review, interventions most likely should be multidimensional, with prioritization strategies on the waiting lists to incorporate equity criteria, together with quality management improvements of the surgical pathways and the use of operating rooms, as well as improvements in the planning of the surgical schedule.

IntroductionUniversity ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations.Methods and analysisThis individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

IntroductionQuality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.Ethics and disseminationThe Universidad de Santiago de Chile’s ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

University ranking systems and the publish‐or‐perish dictum are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity and publication outputs. There is no regulated checking of author affiliations as authors are expected to only include affiliations to universities that have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. Our study aims to establish whether author affiliations can be validated and if there is evidence of misrepresentation from authors who report multiple institutional affiliations. We conducted an exploratory case study on Scopus‐indexed articles for 2016, searching all authors who reported multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of them was to a Chilean university. Of 4,961 author records with multiple affiliations, we were unable to validate 38% of the affiliations to a Chilean university by checking the institutional websites. This affected 40% of articles and was most prevalent in health sciences and for private, new, universities. ORCID identifiers were not suitable for checking affiliations as there was low use of them: only 14% of the multiple‐affiliated authors. The inability to validate affiliations might indicate misconduct, and if it is an indication of misrepresentation, it could have profound implications for many stakeholders (universities, journals, ranking houses, funders, and higher education policy‐makers) due to inflated publication counts and under‐reporting the actual input from individual institutions.

(Rev Med Chile 2013; 141: 419-427).