ArticlePloS one2025
Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home Visits as a Primary Health Care Strategy During COVID-19: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of industrial cheese ripening using near infrared spectroscopy technique: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.