ArticleNature communications2021
Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.
Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A comprehensive compilation of data on the association between XRCC3 polymorphisms and thyroid cancer susceptibility.BMC endocrine disorders · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation to percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Reporting of ethical aspects in validation studies conducted in Peru.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The role of agentic artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Editorial stances on large Language models in leading nursing publications: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Compliance with research participant protection guidelines by Nigerian medical journals.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Releasing synthetic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): Guidelines and applied examples.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Article
- Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel.PloS one · 2024Article
- Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Factors Associated with the Quality and Transparency of National Guidelines: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Automated detection of over- and under-dispersion in baseline tables in randomised controlled trials.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).
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.