Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers

Objectives

To analyse the author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.

Methods

This survey was conducted among all corresponding authors of original research submissions to Radiology. Separately, we surveyed active Radiology reviewers. Results were analysed using logistic multivariate regression.

Results

Overall, 60% of authors (831/1391) completed the survey. Only 15% (120/821) had used the guideline and checklist when designing the study, significantly more so for PRISMA (55%, 16/29) compared with STARD and STROBE users (17%, 52/310; p < 0.001 and 10%, 46/443; p < 0.001). For 23% of the surveyed manuscripts (189/821), authors used the guidelines when writing the manuscript; these authors more often reported an impact on the final manuscript (i.e. changes in the content, 57%, 107/189) compared to those who used the guideline when submitting the manuscript (35%, 95/272; p < 0.001; OR 0.433, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.288–0.648, p < 0.001) or when the checklist was requested by the editorial office (17%, 41/240; p < 0.001; OR 0.156, CI 0.097–0.247, p < 0.001). The perceived value of the reporting guideline was rated significantly higher the earlier the authors used the guideline in the research process (p < 0.001). The checklist was used by 77% of reviewers (200/259) some or all of the time; 60% (119/199) said it affected their reviews.

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and higher perceived value the earlier they were used, suggesting that there is a need for enhanced education on the use of these guidelines.

Key Points

• Only 15% of authors had used the respective reporting guideline and checklist when designing the study.

• Almost 4 out of 5 Radiology authors and half of reviewers judged the guideline checklists to be useful or very useful.

• Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on manuscripts, i.e. changes that were made in the final manuscript, the earlier authors used them in the research process.