ArticlePloS one2012
Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
78 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Reporting Quality (Part 2).JDR clinical and translational research · 2022Pooled it
- Associated Factors and Consequences of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Yoga: A Systematic Review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Pooled it
- What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review.Systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Adherence to CONSORT-PRO Extension Guidelines for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Focused on Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Meta-epidemiological Study.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Knowledge and awareness of the use of reporting guidelines in specialist dentists: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
- Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.PloS one · 2024Article
- Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Review
18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them.
methodsWe surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains).
findingsOnly 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals.
conclusionsAlthough almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.