Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Krnić Martinić, Marina [VerfasserIn]   i
 Herrle, Florian [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research
Titelzusatz:a mixed-methods study
Verf.angabe:Marina Krnic Martinic, Joerg J Meerpohl, Erik von Elm, Florian Herrle, Ana Marusic, Livia Puljak
E-Jahr:2019
Jahr:Aug 2019
Umfang:10 S.
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 14.04.2020
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: BMJ open
Ort Quelle:London : BMJ Publishing Group, 2011
Jahr Quelle:2019
Band/Heft Quelle:9(2019,8) Artikel-Nummer e029704, 10 Seiten
ISSN Quelle:2044-6055
Abstract:Objectives  In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors’ opinion regarding SRs as original research. Design  We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors. Participants  All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals. - Methods  We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or metaanalyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study. - Results  We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty. - Conclusion  The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.
DOI:doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704
 Volltext: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704
 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:eng
K10plus-PPN:169446086X
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68563892   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang