Possible editorial responses to the proliferation of problematic meta-analyses and research syntheses

Journal and book editors in most disciplines are faced with a flood of meta-analyses, which critical reviews have shown are not always of sufficient quality. In the short run, editors could give targeted instructions to authors and make specific recommendations to reviewers to ensure that not only meta-analyses but also research syntheses more broadly, published under their watch, meet acceptable publication standards. In order to achieve satisfactory improvements in the long run, editors should foster fundamental changes in the way the publication of negative and non-significant results is handled.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
European Science Editing
Published
2024-10-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e131528
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.38
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Possible editorial responses to the proliferation of problematic meta-analyses and research syntheses

Philippe C. Baveye
3 citations
European Science Editing
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
1.38
article

Possible editorial responses to the proliferation of problematic meta-analyses and research syntheses

Philippe C. Baveye
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Journal and book editors in most disciplines are faced with a flood of meta-analyses, which critical reviews have shown are not always of sufficient quality. In the short run, editors could give targeted instructions to authors and make specific recommendations to reviewers to ensure that not only meta-analyses but also research syntheses more broadly, published under their watch, meet acceptable publication standards. In order to achieve satisfactory improvements in the long run, editors should foster fundamental changes in the way the publication of negative and non-significant results is handled.

European Science EditingVol. 50
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
1.38
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.