Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

Abstract

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

“…However, our results revealed progress in the endorsement of RGs. By contrast, a 2015 survey (Hua et al, ) of journal instructions to authors showed that references or recommendations for the use of RGs during reviews were low (55 [50.5%] of 109 journals assessed).…”

“…In 2015, Moher et al () investigated the editorial policies of leading medical journals by focusing on 10 core questions that are related to research waste. A survey of dental journal editors conducted by Hua, Walsh, Glenny, and Worthington () provided thorough information regarding the use of RGs in dentistry. Hence, to our knowledge, whether and to what extent dental journals have adopted editorial policies that can reduce avoidable research waste remains unclear.…”

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

“…Perhaps the most relevant result of this descriptive study is that the proportion of retracted papers in dentistry is low compared to the biomedical literature indexed in PubMed, as revealed by our exploratory findings. We could suggest some reasons for this: there is a time-lag of at least 3 years in PubMed notices of retraction [20]; the retraction of papers in this field of knowledge is a recent occurrence when compared with the biomedical literature as a whole; inappropriate or fraudulent data can be very difficult to detect [23]; dental journals have been slow to endorse well-recognised reporting guidelines [24] that could facilitate the identification of ethical problems in the manuscripts. Since there is lacking information on this topic in the field of dentistry, it is difficult to discuss the findings of our study within the specific context of the dental literature.…”

Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects

“…Stevens et al showed that the PRISMA endorsement is associated with more complete reporting . In dentistry, two surveys were conducted investigating the use of reporting guidelines by dental journals and showed that the PRISMA endorsement and implementation is not optimal with considerable room for improvement . Furthermore, the authors of both studies indicated that a broad understanding of the employment of reporting guidelines is necessary by dental journal editors, authors, peer‐reviewers and dental schools/institutions.…”

“…53 In dentistry, two surveys were conducted investigating the use of reporting guidelines by dental journals and showed that the PRISMA endorsement and implementation is not optimal with considerable room for improvement. 9,54 Furthermore, the authors of both studies indicated that a broad understanding of the employment of reporting guidelines is necessary by dental journal editors, authors, peer-reviewers and dental schools/institutions. It is not only a matter of using a guideline, but truly incorporating it into research practice so that stakeholders, researchers, clinicians, and patients benefit from the transparency of the process.…”