Quality of reporting in infertility journals

Review process of the health scientific journals according to explanation of experts

“…The findings regarding financial problems are similar to the findings by Abu Ardakan et al [18] while findings regarding reviewer characteristics such as lack of transparency,[1] reviewer ethics,[410] and understanding of review principles[12] and regarding structural problems such as scientific problems of reviewers and lack of professional reviewers[5] and problems of editorial staff in selecting reviewers[1] are in agreement with the results of other previous studies.…”

“…Previous studies on review process of articles often cover aspects such as methods for improving the quality of articles,[9101112] average review time,[13] acceptance and rejection ratio of articles,[14] reviewers’ characteristics,[14] review ethics,[410] effects of reviewers’ demographic characteristics on review process,[15] principles of writing review reports,[16] and criteria and measures or review process. [417] In fact, similar studies rarely investigate the problems of the review process from the point of view of different people.…”

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study

“…[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] But most have focused on small numbers of trials or specific diseases, journals, or time periods. These studies used various criteria for their assessments, which were frequently not defined.…”

Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals

“…Although we found some more frequent use of CIs, we should remark that we only evaluated RCTs, while Kloukos et al also evaluated other study designs. In a previous study published by our group, we showed that in infertility journals, 42% of the RCTs did not mention the effect size and its precision, and the relative and absolute effect size were missing in 72% (15).…”

“…CONSORT guidelines state in item 17 that both relative and absolute effect size, as well as their precision, should be reported. If we want our readers to correctly interpret the articles published, then authors, peer reviewers, and editorial boards should continue to emphasize reporting in the abstract relevant information, using CIs and absolute differences, as part of a long list of improvements (15). Mandatory checklists for authors and reviewers could have a major role in changing the reporting culture and helping to improve the correct interpretation of the RCTs results.…”