Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do

Paul Whaley, Bas J Blaauboer, Jan Brozek, Elaine A Cohen Hubal, Kaitlyn Hair, Sam Kacew, Thomas B Knudsen, Carol F Kwiatkowski, David T Mellor, Andrew F Olshan, Matthew J Page, Andrew A Rooney, Elizabeth G Radke, Larissa Shamseer, Katya Tsaioun, Peter Tugwell, Daniele Wikoff, Tracey J Woodruff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalAltex
Early online date22 Jun 2021
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 22 Jun 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this