Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40875658›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol.

Leandra Vilela Rodrigues Chaves, Marcos de Moraes Sousa, Woska Pires da Costa, Jéssica Traguetto, Flávio Manoel Coelho Borges Cardoso, Miguel de Matos-Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Leandra Vilela Rodrigues ChavesBusiness, Accounting and Economics Faculty, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1768-9994
Marcos de Moraes SousaBusiness, Accounting and Economics Faculty, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-0550
Woska Pires da CostaInstituto Federal Goiano, Campus Morrinhos, Morrinhos, Goiás, Brazil.
Jéssica TraguettoBusiness, Accounting and Economics Faculty, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3986-8539
Flávio Manoel Coelho Borges CardosoInstituto Federal Goiano, Campus Ceres, Ceres, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1587-0597
Miguel de Matos-TorresKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhancing performance in the public sector is closely tied to institutional structures, governance models, and the behavior of public officials. In the Judiciary, these factors significantly affect the effectiveness of court administration and justice delivery. Judicial governance is a complex and evolving concept encompassing standards and practices related to accountability, independence, resource management, and institutional performance, progressively integrating principles from public management reforms. Despite its growing relevance, the field remains fragmented, with limited evidence connecting international standards to best governance practices in judicial administration.

objectiveThis protocol outlines a scoping review designed to identify, map, and synthesize evidence on best practices in judicial governance, examining their relationship with the effective administration of justice and identifying research gaps to propose a future research agenda.

methodThis review will follow the JBI methodology and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search will be conducted in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, and JSTOR, as well as additional searches in grey literature. The PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) framework guided the eligibility criteria, and the PRESS 2015 checklist was used to validate the search strategy. The PRISMA-S checklist will inform the reporting of the search process. Studies of all designs and publication statuses will be considered, with no restrictions on language or publication date. Two reviewers will independently screen using Rayyan software, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Data extraction will occur at two levels: general source information and specific content related to the review scope. Qualitative data will be analyzed using NVivo software, enabling categorization, descriptive synthesis, gap identification, and the development of a research agenda. DISCUSSION: This scoping review aims to generate key evidence that can inform institutional standards and best governance practices to support evidence-based policymaking; while it does not assess the risk of bias, its systematic methodology and inclusion of grey literature enhance its relevance for future research and innovations in the justice sector. Through this scoping review, key evidence will generate insights that can enhance institutional standards and best practices in governance, enabling evidence-based policymaking. Although the review does not assess the risk of bias, its systematic approach and inclusion of grey literature strengthen its potential to support future research and governance innovations in the justice sector.

trial registrationOSF Registries, Jan 21, 2024: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/agv3b.

Indexed as

Social JusticeGuidelines as TopicHumansPolicyScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40875658
PMCPMC12393731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.