Inconsistent Views Among Systematic Review Authors Toward Publishing Protocols As Peer-reviewed Articles: an International Survey

Objectives: This study aimed to explore views of authors of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) toward publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles.

Study Design And Setting: Contact persons of all PROSPERO records for non-Cochrane SRs registered in 2018 (N = 12,531) were invited to participate in an anonymous 5-minute online survey that was administered through SurveyMonkey. The main question addressed SR authors' views toward publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles. Data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: In total, 4,223 (33.7%) of 12,531 invitees responded, of which 3,739 (88.5%) completed the survey. Almost half of the international respondents had published or planned to publish a protocol for the SR described in their PROSPERO record as a peer-reviewed article (1,811/4,054; 44.7%). Most respondents agreed that publishing a protocol in a peer-reviewed journal increases SR quality as reviewers get external feedback from peer reviewers (2,899/3,739; 77.5%) but at the same time agreed that it is not necessary if the SR is registered in PROSPERO (2,399/3,739; 64.2%).

Conclusion: SR authors seem to have inconsistent views toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles, and many seem to consider registration in PROSPERO (without peer review) sufficient. Hence, awareness about the benefits of publishing protocols as a peer-reviewed article in addition to registration in PROSPERO should be raised.