ArticleBMJ open2018
Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02961036 (The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Surveys of Authors, Reviewers and Readers Questionnaire Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
The Role of Supplementary Material in Journal Articles Surveys of Authors, Reviewers and Readers Questionnaire Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten simple rules for making the supplement increase your paper's impact.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Computational electrostatic engineering of nanobodies for enhanced SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain recognition.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys.Reproductive health · 2021Review
- Is Sharing Datasets the Answer to the New Challenges of Reproductive Biology Research?Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Article
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Googling the Lifetime Risk of Stroke Around the World.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed.BMJ open · 2019Article
- A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Utilizing tables, figures, charts and graphs to enhance the readability of a research paper.Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
- Safety reporting quality in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: A review of phase III clinical trials included in FDA approval of disease-modifying treatments.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMany journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers. DESIGN AND
settingWe conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.
participantsParticipants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.
resultsWe received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.
conclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961036.
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.