Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidencebased medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meerpohl et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: