TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews
T2 - What journal editors can do
AU - Whaley, Paul
AU - Blaauboer, Bas J
AU - Brozek, Jan
AU - Cohen Hubal, Elaine A
AU - Hair, Kaitlyn
AU - Kacew, Sam
AU - Knudsen, Thomas B
AU - Kwiatkowski, Carol F
AU - Mellor, David T
AU - Olshan, Andrew F
AU - Page, Matthew J
AU - Rooney, Andrew A
AU - Radke, Elizabeth G
AU - Shamseer, Larissa
AU - Tsaioun, Katya
AU - Tugwell, Peter
AU - Wikoff, Daniele
AU - Woodruff, Tracey J
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimising editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.
AB - Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimising editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.
UR - http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/34164697
U2 - 10.14573/altex.2106111
DO - 10.14573/altex.2106111
M3 - Article
C2 - 34164697
JO - ALTEX - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
JF - ALTEX - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
SN - 1868-596X
ER -