Strengthening the evidence base: 12 months of progress

Chaos has been the resounding constant for the scientific community over the past 12 months. From the loss of critical funding for research to the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), the changes have been overwhelming, with impact ranging from the catastrophic loss of resources for international development programs,1 to the interruption of clinical trials,2 to confusion and trepidation around new technology.3 Finding trusted sources of evidence-based research in the midst of upheaval and uncertainty may seem more challenging than ever. The editorial staff of JBI Evidence Synthesis can reassure readers and authors alike that we remain committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and research. It was another successful year of growth for the journal, with increases in both readership numbers and a 2024 Impact Factor of 4.5, a substantial increase over the previous year. Throughout volume 23, we published numerous articles both investigating and informing the conduct of evidence syntheses. For the past several years, JBI has marked the month of March (issue 3) as “Methodology Month,” and JBI Evidence Synthesis was pleased to participate by presenting a diverse selection of methodology-related content. Issue highlights included a series of papers presenting the latest innovations to JBI’s methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence from the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group.4-6 The JBI Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group offered comprehensive guidance for data transformation involving “qualitization,” that is, converting quantitative data into qualitative data when conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review.7 The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group shared the revised JBI critical appraisal tool for assessing the risk of bias for cohort studies.8 The JBI Qualitative Reviews Methodology Group conducted a scoping review on how review teams are currently addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in the conduct of qualitative evidence synthesis.9 Additionally, a scoping review identified and mapped the core methodological components of point-of-care evidence summaries, as well as the existing appraisal instruments to evaluate the quality of evidence summaries.10 In summary, issue 3 was packed with useful guidance for systematic reviewers, and there will be more to come in March 2026. Throughout the year, we published editorials with updates and useful tips from various methodological experts, including guidance on how to report methods and results in quantitative systematic reviews,11 an introduction to the newly re-formed JBI Economic Review Methodology Group,12 and an overview of challenges and future steps from members of the Prevalence Estimates Reviews – Systematic Review Methodology Group (PERSyst).13 As our readers know, the journal strives to disseminate rigorous research to inform health care practice. Thus, we were pleased to announce the winners of the 2024 JBI Evidence Synthesis Impact Award at the end of last year. Kariuki et al.,14 authors of the review “Impact of lifestyle-based interventions on absolute cardiovascular disease risk,” were recognized for the excellence of their application of JBI methodology for evidence synthesis, and the potential impact of their research on evidence-based health care policy and practice and the improvement of health outcomes. Authors of systematic reviews published within a calendar year are automatically eligible for the award, and we look forward to announcing the 2025 winner in late 2026. More information about the award criteria is available on the journal website. There was considerable content variety in volume 23, both in terms of methodologies employed in evidence synthesis work, and across topics and populations covered. Effectiveness reviews,15-19 qualitative reviews,20-24 and scoping reviews25-29 were all well represented, in addition to some mixed methods reviews30,31 and umbrella reviews.32,33 Some of the most-read effectiveness reviews included a review on alternative exercises in cardiac rehabilitation for improving rates of program completion and outcomes in women with or at risk of cardiovascular disease,15 as well as a review comparing prophylactic embolization to observation for high-grade blunt trauma splenic injury.16 Qualitative reviews were similarly diverse, covering community-dwelling older people’s experiences of advance care planning with health care professionals,20 and parents’ experiences of accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children.21 Scoping review topics ranged from caring for postpartum hemorrhage outside the hospital setting25 to factors that influence international students’ perceptions of their learning environments.26 Some reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis were also complemented by JBI Best Practice Information Sheets and video editorials, all aiming to ensure that information on best practices is readily available to health practitioners where it can make the most impact. In issue 11, we were pleased to co-publish a collaborative position statement on AI use in evidence synthesis from JBI, Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence.34 The joint AI Methods Group has created detailed guidance to align with the Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) recommendations.35 In 2025, we continued to look for ways to make our content more accessible by supporting translations of review abstracts in languages other than English. In volume 23, we published 32 translations of review abstracts in 19 languages other than English, such as Chinese/Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish. This project formed part of our involvement with World Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBHC) Day in October as Evidence Ambassadors for the third consecutive year. JBI Evidence Synthesis supported the 2025 World EBHC Day campaign centered on Collaborative Knowledge Communication, with an informative blog post outlining how the editorial office team balances the growth of AI and automated tools with the irreplaceable human touch of our in-house editors, a defining ethos of the journal. We have also taken steps to reduce author burden at the submission stage by streamlining the manuscript formatting requirements on initial submission.36 This is in recognition of the many hours authors spend formatting their articles to meet journal requirements. Our aim is to ensure that authors only do this work when it is of most benefit to them. In a similar vein, the journal also expanded its guidance for peer reviewers on the website, adding more information and clarification on what is required during this important part of the process, as well as helpful videos that focus on specific aspects of peer review. Throughout all this activity, new initiatives, and efforts to serve our readers, we continue to be a steady ship amidst the chaos, and rise to the challenges that are inherent in our current world. We thank our readers for their support and hope they have found articles of interest that support their knowledge and future research. We also acknowledge our editors, peer reviewers, and publisher for their commitment and hard work throughout the year. We look forward to bringing our readers another 12 months of interesting, relevant, and impactful evidence synthesis.