De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk

Terug naar zoekresultatenDeel deze publicatie

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

Samenvatting

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).

Toon meer
OrganisatieHogeschool van Amsterdam
Gepubliceerd inNature Communications Vol. 12
Datum2021-10-05
TypeArtikel
DOI10.1038/s41467-021-26027-y
TaalEngels

Op de HBO Kennisbank vind je publicaties van 26 hogescholen

De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk