David Moher

Publication priorities in pharmaceutical journals on epidemics planned to end according to the Sustainable Development Goals

BackgroundEpidemics targeted to end by the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.3 significantly impact morbidity and mortality, requiring adequate response. We investigated the prioritization of publications regarding SDG target 3.3 epidemics: AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and associated factors. MethodsThis cross-sectional study included journals from the 2024 Journal Citation Reports’ (JCR) Pharmacology & Pharmacy category. Primary outcome was publication priority on SDG target 3.3 (≥ 2% of publications about AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria). Bibliometric indicators were collected from JCR, and the number of publications in each journal up to 2023 was identified using Web of Science Core Collection. Gender and countries of the editors were obtained from the journals’ websites and categorized as low-and middle-income or high-income according to the World Bank classification. Poisson regression was employed to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the outcome and journal characteristics. ResultsWe included 349 pharmaceutical journals, which were mostly headed by men (78.7%) and by editors-in-chief from high-income countries (84.0%). Most journals started in 1991-2010 (40.1%), were not open-access (63.3%), and had majority-male editorial boards (86.7%). Higher publication priority on SDG target 3.3 was observed in journals established more recently (1991‒2010: PR 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.27; ≥2011: PR 1.68; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.43) when compared to <1990, and those with leading editors from low-and middle-income countries (PR 1.44; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.99) in comparison to journals with editors-in-cheif from high-income countries. ConclusionsJournals with editors-in-chief from developing countries and those established more recently published more articles on SDG target 3.3 themes. Increasing diversity in editorial boards can be strategic on the path to disseminating research for sustainable development.

Editorial policies and experiences with PRISMA-P 2015: a cross-sectional study

Objective: To explore editorial policies and experiences with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 reporting guideline.Methods: Through a PubMed search, we identified the 25 journals that had published the highest number of systematic review protocols from May 2021 to May 2024. From corresponding journal websites, two authors independently extracted general and PRISMA-P specific reporting instructions and journal policies on publishing systematic review protocols. We distinguished between mandatory, non-mandatory, and generic terminology. We applied thematic content analysis to the extracted data. We emailed five editorial offices and 15 journal editors with invitations to participate in interviews on their experiences with PRISMA-P 2015. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide around three prespecified themes: level of experience with publishing review protocols, views on using PRISMA-P 2015 in the editorial process, and reflections on its strengths and challenges. Framework analysis was applied to the interview transcripts.Results: From the 25 journals, we identified 143 descriptions of reporting instructions and journal policies. Sixty-two (43%, from 21 journals) were general reporting instructions, 27 (19%, from 11 journals) were PRISMA-P 2015 specific reporting instructions, and 54 (38%, from 19 journals) were journal policies on publishing systematic review protocols. Most (24 of 27, 89%) of the PRISMA-P 2015 reporting instructions were on use or endorsement (e.g., that authors were required or strongly encouraged to follow PRISMA-P 2015) or on requirements to submit a completed PRISMA-P 2015 checklist, frequently expressed using mandatory terminology. Ten journal editors were interviewed and several suggestions for modifying PRISMA-P 2015 emerged. Some suggestions related to the reporting guideline in general (e.g., add explanation on the distinction between registry entries and full protocols). Other suggestions related to adding or modifying content (e.g., report the current stage of the review or integrate guidance from other sources, such as PRISMA-Search).Conclusion: While nearly all of the 25 included journals had general reporting instructions and policies for publishing systematic review protocols, around half provided specific PRISMA-P 2015 reporting instructions. The interviewed journal editors suggested several additions and modifications to PRISMA-P 2015. Our findings provide context for editors, peer reviewers, authors, and other users of PRISMA-P 2015 and will inform the forthcoming update of the reporting guideline.

Primary Evaluation outcomEs for Research on peer review – A Core Outcome Set (PEER-COS): A Scoping Review to Inform Item Development (Protocol)

This protocol describes a scoping review that will identify, map, and synthesize the outcomes and measurement tools used in empirical research on manuscript peer review, providing the initial evidence base for the Primary Evaluation outcomEs for Research on peer review - A Core Outcome Set (PEER-COS). Guided by JBI methodology and the COMET Handbook and COS-STAD principles, the review will search seven bibliographic databases, preprint servers, and 69 grey-literature sources for eligible English-language systematic reviews, experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies published from 1986 onwards. Eligible studies must evaluate an empirically measured outcome related to peer review of scholarly manuscripts, including, for example, quality, timeliness, transparency, fairness, reliability, or stakeholder experience. Screening and data extraction will be supported by the otto-SR artificial-intelligence platform and subject to predefined human quality checks; identified outcomes will be synthesized quantitatively and thematically into unique outcome concepts and broader domains. The resulting candidate outcome list will inform a three-round international Delphi consensus process involving relevant interest holders—including researchers, editors, peer reviewers, funders, statisticians, and patient and public partners—to establish a core outcome set for future research evaluating manuscript peer review and peer-review interventions.

Attitudes and perceptions toward the use of artificial intelligence chatbots for peer review in medical journals: a large-scale, international cross-sectional survey

Background Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are increasingly being considered for use in scholarly peer review to assist with tasks such as identifying methodological issues, verifying references, and improving language clarity. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency. Evidence on how medical journal peer reviewers perceive the role and impact of AICs is limited. This study explored reviewers’ familiarity with AICs, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical concerns, and anticipated future roles in peer review. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of medical journal peer reviewers. Corresponding author information was extracted from MEDLINE-indexed articles added to PubMed within a six-week period. A total of 72,851 authors were invited via email to participate; those who self-identified as peer reviewers were eligible. The 29-item survey assessed familiarity with AICs and perceptions of their benefits and limitations in peer review. The survey was administered via SurveyMonkey from April 28 to June 16, 2025, with two reminder emails sent during the data collection period. Results Of 66,679 email invitations, a total of 1260 respondents provided survey responses (response rate: 1.9%), of whom 1157 met the eligibility criteria, and 1077 answered the main survey questions. Most participants were familiar with AICs (86.2%) and had used them for general purposes (87.7%), though most report not using AICs for peer review purposes (70.3%). Most respondents reported that their institutions do not provide training on AIC use in peer review (69.5%), although many expressed interest in such training (60.7%). Perceptions of AIC benefits were mixed, while concerns were widely shared, particularly regarding potential algorithmic bias (80.3%) and issues related to trust and user acceptance (73.3%). Conclusions While familiarity with AICs is high among medical journal peer reviewers, their reported use in peer review remains limited. There is clear interest in training and guidance, however, concerns related to ethics, data privacy, and research integrity persist and should be addressed before broader implementation.

Equipping the next generation: addressing the unmet need for artificial intelligence education at research performing organizations

Background The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools into higher education is rapidly accelerating, yet the educational ecosystem appears largely unprepared for the scale and speed of adoption. Our recent international survey of over 1,200 university students and postdoctoral fellows in the medical and life sciences found that while more than 80% had used GenAI tools, the vast majority had received no formal training, and many were unaware of any institutional policies governing their use. This gap between adoption and institutional preparedness may pose risks to research integrity if left unaddressed. Main body Existing research supports a coordinated, evidence-informed approach to AI education in research performing organizations (RPOs), grounded in principles of research integrity, equity, and critical engagement with technology. First, GenAI literacy must be embedded as a core competency in scientific and clinical education, equipping students to critically evaluate tool outputs, recognize hallucination and bias, and understand the distinction between AI-generated inaccuracy and deliberate research misconduct. Second, traditional frameworks for academic integrity would benefit from re-examination. Today, GenAI tools have fundamentally disrupted established notions of authorship, originality, and plagiarism, and the absence of coherent institutional guidance leaves students and educators navigating these questions without support. Third, RPOs must develop clear, transparent, and context-sensitive policies on GenAI use by embedding responsible AI education into curricula, equipping learners not only to use these tools effectively, but to question, verify, and critique their outputs in ways that uphold scientific standards. Conclusion RPOs have an urgent responsibility to move beyond reactive responses and toward proactive strategies that uphold scientific standards, promote equity of access, and prepare the next generation of researchers and clinicians to engage with GenAI responsibly and ethically.

JAN 2014GlasziouThe Lancet

Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research

Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.

SPIRIT 2013: new guidance for content of clinical trial protocols

Developing methods guidance for health researchers: literature review of proposed and applied strategies

OBJECTIVES: Health researchers benefit from methods guidance (MG) for planning, conducting, analyzing, and interpreting research studies. How to develop MG that is trustworthy and researcher-friendly is unclear; existing strategies for developing MG are fragmented and lack a coherent framework. The STrategies for developing REseArch Methods guidance project aims to provide such a framework for developers of MG. As a first step, we reviewed the literature to identify proposed and applied strategies for developing MG and explored possible knowledge gaps. METHODS: We conducted two literature reviews. First, a scoping review of the methodological literature to identify proposed strategies for developing MG. Second, a review of a purposeful sample of recently published MG articles to examine strategies applied in practice. We applied a qualitative content analysis to both sets of publications using one shared codebook. In addition, to identify possible knowledge gaps, we contrasted the findings with the established development processes for clinical practice guidelines and reporting guidelines. RESULTS: The first review included 17 publications, and the second review included 102 MG articles. We identified possible development steps including assessing the need for MG, establishing a working group, considering the findings from methodological studies, gathering input from interest-holders, testing the new MG, and disseminating and implementing MG. In addition, we identified various approaches to perform the steps including systematic reviews of previous guidance, reviews of methodological practice, simulation studies, surveys or interviews of interest-holders, consensus methods, and public review. Mapping these findings with established development processes identified areas that have so far received limited attention within MG development, including considering evidence from methodological research, judging the certainty of this evidence, reporting of MG, and approaches to implementation. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of proposed and applied strategies for developing MG, highlights needs for conceptual development, and provides a structured starting point for guidance for developing MG. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Almost every method used in health research comes with its own guidance, sets of advice and suggestions on how to plan and carry out the research, as well as helping with the analysis and interpretation of the results. When this guidance is clear and can be trusted, it helps researchers produce evidence that is valid and useful. However, the process for developing such guidance is currently unclear. The aim of this project called STREAM is to create a framework for developing trustworthy and user-friendly MG. In this manuscript, we report on two literature reviews that will inform the new strategies. In the first, we looked for existing publications that suggest strategies for developing MG. Secondly, we examined recently published MG articles to see how they were developed. We also compared our findings with established development processes for other kinds of guidance: clinical practice guidelines and reporting guidelines. As a result, we found many possible and complementary strategies for developing MG: forming a working group, reviewing previous research, seeking input from interest-holders, testing the guidance, and actively supporting dissemination and use. We also identified important areas where further research is needed. For example, we found that it is currently unclear how previous research should inform MG or how to optimally present it. In summary, our reviews identified various possible strategies for developing MG but also important gaps that the framework for developing MG should address.

AUG 18MoherJMIR AI

PRISMA-trAIce: A Name Without Endorsement

Existing guidelines and training resources for creating Narrative CVs: a Scoping Review

Scoping review identifies available training resources for narrative CVs, highlighting gaps in guidance for reviewers.

SUCCEED guideline for reporting studies of scaling evidence-informed interventions, with explanations and examples

Guideline establishes recommendations on reporting scaling studies, enhancing their accuracy and usefulness.

Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola and Marburg disease: a series of rapid reviews

Rapid reviews assess infection prevention methods in health and community settings for Ebola and Marburg, highlighting gaps in existing knowledge.

Protocol for a CONSORT extension for reporting Pragmatic and Explanatory trials designed using the PRECIS tool. (CONSORT-PRECIS)

Randomized trial updates CONSORT guidelines for improved reporting of pragmatic and explanatory trials, indicating better adherence to best practices.

The data transparency crisis in research: Lessons from systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Policy Forum highlights the need for enhanced data-sharing mechanisms to improve research validity and patient safety.

Reporting of Cohort and Routinely Collected Data in Randomised Controlled Trial Protocols (SPIRIT-ROUTINE): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomized trial presents a checklist for improving the reporting of protocols using routinely collected data, promoting better outcomes.

Low coronary sinus oxygen content is linked to ~134% higher mortality in severe heart failure.

A low coronary sinus oxygen content is a strong predictor of mortality in patients with severe congestive heart failure, indicating noncompensated metabolic demand.

Protocol outlines systematic review comparing resistance versus aerobic training for functional fitness and quality of life.

Protocol for systematic review of resistance versus aerobic training in older adults; leaves open effects on quality of life and heart health.

Most cardiovascular funders mandate data sharing at ~67%, but compliance monitoring remains inconsistent.

Cardiovascular research funders increasingly mandate open science practices like data sharing and open access, but policies remain uneven in scope, monitoring, and support.

MATES: A tool for appraising the completeness with which a meta-analysis has been reported

Meta-analysis is commonly a core component of systematic reviews and has become an important method to reconcile conflicting findings, increase statistical power, and chart new research directions. However, poor reporting practices make it challenging to evaluate the validity of meta-analyses. Despite the existence of reporting checklists, a specifically designed tool has yet to be developed to appraise the completeness with which a meta-analysis has been reported. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Meta-analysis Appraisal Tool for Environmental Sciences (MATES). To develop MATES, we adapted a Delphi process involving experts in meta-analysis methodologies, researchers with experience in guideline/appraisal tool development, and editors of relevant journals. The Delphi process had five steps, including three workshops (11-16 participants), a survey (193 participants), and a validation task (30 participants). This iterative development process resulted in a 14-item appraisal tool that reflects the environmental science and research syntheses community's consensus on essential elements to appraise the completeness with which a meta-analysis has been reported. Validation across 50 meta-analyses demonstrated that the tool is repeatable (average agreement rate: 88.97 %) and time-efficient to implement (17.00 ± 12.23 min). We also outline guidance for interpreting MATES results, describe its potential applications, and reflect on the development process. The authors provide practical implementation guidance for each MATES item, illustrated with real examples in the supplementary material. We also report an extended development methodology to support reproducibility. Finally, we built created a ShinyApp that includes both a training module and an application tool to enhance the usability of MATES (https://kylemorrisonisshiny99.shinyapps.io/MATES_shiny/). Overall, MATES provides authors, readers, stakeholders, and editors with a reliable and accessible tool for appraising the completeness with which a meta-analysis in environmental sciences has been reported.

The Risk of Bias in Vaccine Effectiveness (RoB-VE) project: introduction to a methodological initiative to improve risk-of-bias assessment and reporting in vaccine effectiveness research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are essential for informing immunization policy and public health decision-making. However, the observational nature of most VE studies introduces unique methodological challenges, including biases that are not adequately addressed by existing risk-of-bias (RoB) tools. The Risk of Bias in Vaccine Effectiveness (RoB-VE) project is an international, multiphase methodological research initiative aimed at improving the quality, transparency, interpretability, and reporting of VE research. DISCUSSION: Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by many global partners, the project seeks to generate a comprehensive toolkit for VE studies. This includes an RoB assessment resource tailored to VE study designs and a complementary reporting guideline to enhance consistency in VE study reporting. The project follows an evidence-informed approach, beginning with a review of the literature to inform tool development, and progressing through interest holder engagement, modified Delphi consensus, usability testing, and beta validation. This introductory paper outlines the rationale, scope, and methodology of the RoB-VE project. These efforts aim to strengthen the methodological foundation of VE research and support more reliable evidence synthesis and policy development. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: VE studies measure how well vaccines work in real-world scenarios. These studies are essential for shaping vaccination recommendations. To assess the validity of VE studies, it is necessary to carry out an RoB assessment, which involves looking at different aspects of the study (eg, data collection methods, how participants are recruited, etc.) that have the potential to yield misleading results. Existing RoB assessment tools do not fully capture issues particularly relevant to VE studies and inconsistent reporting limits their usefulness. To address this, we are conducting the RoB-VE project. This project aims to improve the quality, transparency, interpretability, and reporting of VE research through the development, validation, and dissemination of a robust and user-friendly RoB assessment tool, specifically tailored for assessing VE studies. Our methodology involves a comprehensive multistep process based on established approaches. A broad range of international participants with diverse expertise and profiles will be engaged along the way to refine and finalize the tool. After pilot testing the beta version of the tool and making further refinements, we aim to deliver version 1 of the tool, which will undergo a large-scale application phase to assess its reliability and usefulness. Additionally, we will develop a reporting guideline to enhance the completeness of reporting of VE studies. This introductory paper outlines the rationale, scope, and methodology of the RoB-VE project. This project will elevate the standards of evidence synthesis, ultimately contributing to more reliable, transparent, and impactful research in the critical field of VE evaluation.