Review Article
A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate whether training in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review effectively improves educational outcomes related to the quality of health research reporting.

Study Design and Setting

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for comparative studies of formalized, a priori–developed training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, or manuscript peer review. Comparators included the following: (1) before and after administration of a training program, (2) between two or more training programs, or (3) between a training program and any other (or no) intervention(s). Outcomes included any measure of effectiveness of training.

Results

Eighteen reports of 17 studies were included. Twelve studies focused on writing for publication, five on peer review, and none fit our criteria for journal editing.

Conclusion

Included studies were generally small and inconclusive regarding the effects of training of authors, peer reviewers, and editors on educational outcomes related to improving the quality of health research. Studies were also of questionable validity and susceptible to misinterpretation because of their risk of bias. This review highlights the gaps in our knowledge of how to enhance and ensure the scientific quality of research output for authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

Keywords

Author
Peer review
Editor
Systematic review
Journalology
Manuscript

Cited by (0)

Transparency declaration: The lead author (manuscript's guarantor) affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported, that no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Funding: This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#278874). The funder has no role in the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

D.M. is funded by a University Research Chair. D.W.C. is supported by the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa at The Ottawa Hospital.

Conflict of interest: None.