279 (60.92%) cited an SR in the Introduction
SR: systematic review; MA: meta–analysis; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
Overall, most studies were determined to exhibit a low risk of bias in the majority of items, and all of the included meta-research studies reported an unambiguous aim and a match between aim and methods. However, only a few studies provided argumentation for their choice of data source [ 17 , 20 , 24 , 30 ], and only two of the 21 studies referred to an available a-priori protocol [ 16 , 21 ]. Finally, seven studies provided poor or no discussion of the limitations of their study [ 10 , 19 , 22 , 26 – 28 , 34 ]. The risk-of-bias assessments are shown in Table 3 .
Study | 1. Clear and focused aim | 2. Match between aim and method(s) | 3 The best data source(s) chosen | 4. All important variables considered | 5. The same variables considered in all data sources | 6. Data collection transparent and data unambiguously identified | 7. Classification of the variables unaffected of prior knowledge about the results | 8. Appropriate analysis method | 9. Systematic error(s) or bias taken into consideration | 10. Conclusion supported by data |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bolland et al. (2018) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Chapman et al. (2019) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Chow et al. (2017) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Clarke & Hopewell (2013) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Clarke et al. (2007) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Clarke et al. (2010) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Clayton et al. (2017) (survey) | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Not applicable | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk |
De Meulemeester et al. (2018) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Engelking et al. (2018) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Goudie et al. (2010) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Helfer et al. (2015) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Hoderlein et al. (2017) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Johnson et al. (2020) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Joseph et al. (2018) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Ker K & Roberts I. (2015) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Rauh et al. (2020) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Rosenthal et al. (2017) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Seehra et al. (2021) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Shepard et al. (2021) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Torgeson et al. (2020) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Walters et al. (2019) | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
Of the included 21 studies, a total of 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies included two cohorts each, and both cohorts in each of these studies were included in our meta-analysis [ 21 , 30 ]. The survey by Clayton and colleagues, with a response rate of 17%, was not included in the meta-analysis as the survey did not provide data to identify the use of systematic reviews to justify specific studies. However, their results showed that 42 of 84 respondents (50%) reported using a systematic review for justification [ 29 ]. The study by Chow, which was also not included in the meta-analysis, showed that justification varied largely within and between specialties. However, only relative numbers were provided, and, therefore, no overall percentage could be extracted [ 11 ]. The study by Seehra et al. counted the SR citations in RCTs and not the number of RCTs citing SRs and is therefore not included in the meta-analysis either [ 23 ].
The percentage of original studies that justified a new study with a systematic review within each meta-research study ranged from 16% to 87%. The pooled percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their research question was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%) as shown in Fig 2 . Where the confidence interval showed the precision of the pooled estimate in a meta-analysis, the prediction interval showed the distribution of the individual studies. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis assessed by I 2 was 94%. The clinical interpretation of this large heterogeneity is seen in a the very broad prediction interval ranging from 16 to 71%, meaning that based on these studies there is 95% chance that the results of the next study will show a prevalence between 16 to 71%.
Forest plot prevalence and 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of studies using an SR to justify the study.
Further, we conducted an explorative subgroup analysis of the study of Helfer et al. and the study of Joseph et al. as these two studies were on meta-analyses and protocols and therefore differ from the other included studies. This analysis did only marginally change the pooled percentage to 39% (95% CI; 33% to 46%) and the between-study variance (tau 2 ) was reduced with 23%.
The 21 included studies varied greatly in their approach and in their description of how systematic reviews were used, i.e., if the original studies referred and whether the used systematic reviews in the original studies were relevant and/or of high-quality. Nine studies assessed, to varying degrees, whether the used systematic reviews were relevant for the justification of the research [ 16 – 20 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 34 ]. Overall, the information reported by the meta-research studies was not sufficient to report the percentage of primary studies referring to relevant systematic reviews. No details were provided regarding the methodological quality of the systematic reviews used to justify the research question or if they were recently published reviews, except for Hoderlein et al., who reported that the mean number of years from publication of the cited systematic review and the trial report was four years [ 30 ].
We identified 21 meta-research studies, spanning 15 publication years and 12 medical disciplines. The findings showed substantial variability in the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical studies, with the incidence of use ranging from 16% to 87%. However, fewer than half of the 19 meta-analysis-eligible studies used a systematic review to justify their new study. There was wide variability, and a general lack of information, about how systematic reviews were used within many of the original studies. Our systematic review found that the proportion of original studies justifying their new research using evidence syntheses is sub-optimal and, thus, the potential for research redundancy continues to be a challenge. This study corroborates the serious possible consequences regarding research redundancy previously problematized by Chalmers et al. and Glasziou et al. [ 35 , 36 ].
Systematic reviews are considered crucial when justifying a new study, as is emphasized in reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT statement [ 37 ]. However, there are challenges involved in implementing an evidence-based research approach. The authors of the included meta-research study reporting the highest use of systematic reviews to justify a new systematic review study point out that even though the authors of the original studies refer to some of the published systematic reviews, they neglect others on the same topic, which may be problematic and result in a biased approach [ 33 ]. Other issues that have been identified are the risk of research waste when a systematic review may not be methodologically sound [ 12 , 38 ] and that there is also redundancy in the conduct of systematic reviews, with many overlapping systematic reviews existing on the same topic [ 39 – 41 ]. In the original studies within the meta-research studies, the use of systematic reviews was not consistent and, further, it was not explicated whether the systematic reviews used were the most recent and/or of high methodological quality. These issues speak to the need for refinement in the area of systematic review development, such as mandatory registration in prospective registries. Only two out of the included 21 studies in this study referred to an available a-priori protocol [ 16 , 21 ]. General recommendations in the use of systematic reviews as justification for a new study are difficult as these will be topic specific, however researchers should be aware to use the most robust and methodologically sound of recently published reviews, preferably with á priori published protocols.
Efforts must continue in promoting the use of evidence-based research approaches among clinical health researchers and other important stakeholders, such as funders. Collaborations such as the Ensuring Value in Research Funders Forum, and changes in funding review criteria mandating reference to previously published systematic reviews when justifying the research question within funding proposals, are examples of how stakeholders can promote research that is evidence-based [ 8 , 41 ].
We conducted a comprehensive and systematic search. The lack of standard terminology for meta-research studies resulted in search strategies that retrieved thousands of citations. We also relied on snowballing efforts to identify relevant studies, such as by contacting experts and scanning the reference lists of relevant studies.
There is also a lack of tools to assess risk of bias for meta-research studies, so a specific risk-of bias tool for the five conducted reviews was created. The tool was discussed and revised continuously throughout the research process; however, we acknowledge that the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed.
Many of the included meta-research studies did not provide details as to whether the systematic reviews used to justify the included studies were relevant, high-quality and/or recently published. This may raise questions as to the validity of our findings, as the majority of the meta-research studies only provide an indication of the citation of systematic reviews to justify new studies, not whether the systematic review cited was relevant, recent and of high-quality, or even how the systematic review was used. We did not assess this further either. Nonetheless, even if we assumed that these elements were provided for every original study included in the included meta-research studies (i.e. taking a conservative approach), fewer than half used systematic reviews to justify their research questions. The conservative approach used in this study therefore does not underestimate, and perhaps rather overestimates, the actual use of relevant systematic reviews to justify studies in clinical health science across disciplines.
Different study designs were included in the meta-analysis, which may have contributed to the high degree of heterogeneity observed. Therefore, the presented results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity. Not only were there differences in the methods of the included meta-research studies, but there was also heterogeneity in the medical specialties evaluated [ 42 , 43 ].
In conclusion, justification of research questions in clinical health research with systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent; fewer than half of the primary studies within the included meta-research studies in this systematic review were found to have used a systematic review to justify their research question. This indicates that the risk of redundant research is still high when new studies across disciplines and professions in clinical health are initiated, thereby indicating that evidence-based research has not yet been successfully implemented in the clinical health sciences. Efforts to raise awareness and to ensure an evidence-based research approach continue to be necessary, and such efforts should involve clinical health researchers themselves as well as important stakeholders such as funders.
S1 checklist, s1 protocol, acknowledgments.
This work has been prepared as part of the Evidence-Based Research Network ( ebrnetwork.org ). The Evidence-Based Research Network is an international network that promotes the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing, and interpreting research. The authors thank the Section for Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences for their generous support of the EBRNetwork. Further, thanks to COST Association for supporting the COST Action “EVBRES” (CA 17117, evbres.eu) and thereby the preparation of this study. Thanks to Gunhild Austrheim, Head of Unit, Library at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway, for helping with the second search. Thanks to those helping with the screening: Durita Gunnarsson, Gorm Høj Jensen, Line Sjodsholm, Signe Versterre, Linda Baumbach, Karina Johansen, Rune Martens Andersen, and Thomas Aagaard.
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution from the EVBRES (COST ACTION CA 17117) Core Group, including Anne Gjerland (AG) and her specific contribution to the search and screening process.
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Transfer alert.
This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.
PONE-D-22-02383Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studiesPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Andreasen,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by May 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Andrzej Grzybowski
Academic Editor
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:
- https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356 (22)00016-6/fulltext
In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.
3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions .
In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:
a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.
b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories .
We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.
4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting meta-research paper, which is part of a series of papers.
Basing new research on systematic reviews is clearly important and has been the subject of a number of reviews. This paper essentially reviews the meta-research in this area, to give a global assessment of the issue taking into account all of the evidence
The content of the rest of the series was not made clear, but a decision has been made to publish them singly. I think the short description of the rest of the programme could be expanded a little to put the work in context and help the reader understand how the work fits together. How do the different studies relate, and are other papers needed to put the current work in context?
The introduction defines meta-research in broad terms, but it is not until the results that the reader is given a sense of the actual designs included and of relevance to the research question. Were these defined a priori, or were these study designs that fit the broad definition which happened to be found in the search? Are there meta-research designs of relevance to the research question which were not found in the searches?
Personally, I would bring a description of the range of study design forward into the introduction, as getting a sense of the sorts of approaches to meta-research of relevance will help non-specialists in this area. I was not clear of the likely designs until quite late in the paper
The review methods seemed very rigorous, and I had no major comments on those beyond one clarification. When they said, ‘No study was excluded on the grounds of low quality’, did they mean that no studies were considered so bad, or that as a rule no studies were every going to be excluded on that basis?
As noted above, there were a number of study designs included, and all were assessed using the generic risk of bias tool. Presumably some designs are just stronger than others? The survey must be considered a weaker design that the others. Again, this links to the earlier comment about the need for more detail on design of the meta research, which I felt was lost in the use of a generic risk of bias assessment.
I did not understand the statement ‘The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%’ and that needs clarification
The discussion is balanced, but there are a few significant issues that are given a fairly cursory consideration and would benefit from greater detail
I was interested in the issue of the ‘quality’ of the reviews used. I accept that the data here was not enough for analysis, but felt that the authors (as experts in this area) could be pushed to provide a stronger statement about what criteria should be used by further studies (for example, how do we judge if a review used as the basis for research is a strong basis. How long before a quoted review is too ‘old’?)
They acknowledge that ‘the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed’. Given their experience and expertise, what would that look like, and how would it be best developed and tested? How would it take into account the role of different designs noted above, given variation in the approaches to meta-research they found?
I appreciate the simple and elegant assessment of the main findings, but they present only vague statement on the role of design and medical specialities. Is it not possible for them to say more on this, or explore the data more fully? What about change over time, which seems very relevant. I did feel the authors could be pushed a little more here, given that they have a programme of work and must be in a position to present more substantive statements. I think that would add to the contribution of the paper
Reviewer #2: The article is on interesting topic but several points needs emphasis:
the inclusion criteria should be defined more clearly in the text
Systematiic review and meta analysis are relatively new and first papers go to late seventies in previous century.
This should be considered when reviewing papers.
The risk of redundancy could not be well defined from the meta search papers rather it should be from the original articles . This would not be possible unless a focused issue is chosen as an example.
The different disciplines have different research out puts as the basis for systematic reviews which makes the comparison difficult .
I realize some studies are based on the disclosure of the authors whether they have used the previous systematic reviews or not . This should be confirmed by evidence .
These should be mentioned as the limitations of this work .
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .
Reviewer #1: Yes: Peter Bower
Reviewer #2: No
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
25 Apr 2022
Response letter to the editor and reviewers,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewers for the positive and constructive comments concerning the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript in accordance with these comments by addressing all issues from the editor and from the reviewers below.
Answer: we have addressed the requirements, see our answers below.
Answer: We believe we meet the style requirements, including correct file naming.
Answer: We agree that there are overlap in parts of the methods section with the mentioned publication. The paper was published in the period of this manuscript being in review, we have therefore now referred to the publication in this manuscript. This manuscript and the publication are both part of a series of papers assessing the global status of evidence-based research in clinical health research and therefore the overlap in the methods section was expected. We have thoroughly scrutinized the full manuscript and found no full sentences that are overlapping, except for the methods section. To be sure of this, we further have conducted a legal comparison in MS Words with the mentioned publication and again found no full sentences except in the methods section. This is to our sincere knowledge only in the methods section, please let us know if we are mistaken.
Answer: We have uploaded the data set necessary to replicate our study findings in a supplementary file and described the changes to the “Data Availability statement” in the cover letter.
Reviewer comments Reviewer #1:
1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting meta-research paper, which is part of a series of papers.
Response: Thank you for this response and that is exactly the purpose.
2. The content of the rest of the series was not made clear, but a decision has been made to publish them singly. I think the short description of the rest of the program could be expanded a little to put the work in context and help the reader understand how the work fits together. How do the different studies relate, and are other papers needed to put the current work in context?
Response: We have expanded the text and especially regarding how the work fits together and shows our purpose of taking a global assessment of the on evidence-based research in the following six papers:
1. Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research – a scoping review
2. A Systematic Review on the Use of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials
3. Justification
6. The problem of citation bias – a scoping review
We do not have other papers in pipeline at the moment, but we are currently working on a Handbook for Evidence-Based Research to provide tools and models to make it easier for researchers to work evidence- based in their research.
Changes to text: This study is one of six ongoing meta-syntheses (four systematic reviews and two scoping reviews) planned to assess the global state of evidence-based research in clinical health research. These are; a scoping review mapping the area broadly to describe current practice and identify knowledge gaps, a systematic review on the use of prior research in reports of randomized controlled trials specifically, three systematic reviews assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing [14] or putting results of a new study in context, and finally a scoping review uncovering the breadth and characteristics of the available, empirical evidence on the topic of citation bias . Further, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences.
3. The introduction defines meta-research in broad terms, but it is not until the results that the reader is given a sense of the actual designs included and of relevance to the research question. Were these defined a priori, or were these study designs that fit the broad definition which happened to be found in the search? Are there meta-research designs of relevance to the research question which were not found in the searches?
Response: We get your point. A very broad and inclusive definition was defined a priori in the published protocol: “Types of study to be included: We will include meta-research studies (or studies performing research on research)” in order not to miss out on relevant studies, because the research field was quite new and further, we did not identify other meta-research studies to guide our process. Due to our very broad and sensitive search strategy we believe we identified all relevant meta-research studies.
Only data regarding justification from original papers were included in our meta-analysis as the study design of a survey of delegates use of systematic reviews to justify their studies, was assessed as seriously subjected to a social desirability bias.
Changes to text:
Introduction: The present systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize results from meta-research studies, regardless study type, evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews to justify a new study.
Methods section, eligibility criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were original meta-research studies, regardless study type, that evaluated if and how authors of clinical health studies used systematic reviews to justify new clinical health studies.
4. Personally, I would bring a description of the range of study design forward into the introduction, as getting a sense of the sorts of approaches to meta-research of relevance will help non-specialists in this area. I was not clear of the likely designs until quite late in the paper
Response: We agree and have made it clear that all meta-research studies regardless design was included.
Changes to text: see above.
5. The review methods seemed very rigorous, and I had no major comments on those beyond one clarification. When they said, ‘No study was excluded on the grounds of low quality’, did they mean that no studies were considered so bad, or that as a rule no studies were every going to be excluded on that basis?
Response: The latter, as a rule no studies were excluded, as our intention was not to guide clinical practice. This is stated in the manuscript as the last sentence in the Risk-of-Bias Assessment section. No changes are therefore made.
6. As noted above, there were a number of study designs included, and all were assessed using the generic risk of bias tool. Presumably some designs are just stronger than others? The survey must be considered a weaker design that the others. Again, this links to the earlier comment about the need for more detail on design of the meta research, which I felt was lost in the use of a generic risk of bias assessment.
Response: We agree on this point, but we did take a very open approach to monitor the field of justification. And we did not range the study designs in a hierarchical order in our “premature” Risk of Bias tool, as we aimed to assess the area and not to provide any clinical recommendations. However, the author group and colleagues are currently working on an improved checklist tool.
No further changes to text.
7. I did not understand the statement ‘The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%’ and that needs clarification
Response: We agree that an explanation is appropriate.
Changes to text: The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%, meaning that there is 95% confidence that the results of the next study will be between a prevalence of 16 to 71%.
8. The discussion is balanced, but there are a few significant issues that are given a fairly cursory consideration and would benefit from greater detail
Response: We have addressed the issues mentioned below and provided more detail
9. I was interested in the issue of the ‘quality’ of the reviews used. I accept that the data here was not enough for analysis, but felt that the authors (as experts in this area) could be pushed to provide a stronger statement about what criteria should be used by further studies (for example, how do we judge if a review used as the basis for research is a strong basis. How long before a quoted review is too ‘old’?)
Response: Very interesting topic to address further, which we have continuously discussed in the author group, but this is both complex and context dependent in specific topics. Therefore, we have chosen not to elaborate further on the topic in the manuscript, to give an appropriate consideration more space is needed.
Instead, we have mentioned these considerations as important to address further in future publications as to guide researchers when using systematic reviews to justify. As mentioned earlier, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences, which will elaborate on the topics in detail.
Changes to text in Discussion section:
General recommendations in the use of systematic reviews as justification for a new study are difficult as these will be topic specific, however researchers should be aware to use the most robust and methodologically sound of recently published reviews, preferably with á priori published protocols.
10. They acknowledge that ‘the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed’. Given their experience and expertise, what would that look like, and how would it be best developed and tested? How would it take into account the role of different designs noted above, given variation in the approaches to meta-research they found?
Response: We fully agree with you on this topic and the author group and colleagues are currently working on an improved checklist tool. Your suggestion about ranging the study designs is very relevant and will be considered in the author group in this thorough work that we expect to publish in the near future. We find the work requires space and thorough analysis and we therefore have decided this should be published in an independent paper.
11. I appreciate the simple and elegant assessment of the main findings, but they present only vague statement on the role of design and medical specialities. Is it not possible for them to say more on this, or explore the data more fully? What about change over time, which seems very relevant. I did feel the authors could be pushed a little more here, given that they have a programme of work and must be in a position to present more substantive statements. I think that would add to the contribution of the paper
Response: The role of design is only considered in relation to that the studies has done meta - research on the topic “justification”. We do not find it was appropriate to explicate more about the roles of medical specialties as the approach in the different studies were very diverse ranging from participants in the survey, to specialties or to specific journals (mostly high ranking) or more broad aimed journals or databases.
Change over time is an important and relevant question. We did not address the issue for two reasons. Firstly, most of the papers are published after 2012 and it would be a short timeline to assess. But most importantly, as most of the included studies in our meta-research study were cross-sectional, we would not be able to validly assess change over time with the data at hand.
Reviewer comments Reviewer #2 :
1. The article is on interesting topic but several points needs emphasis
Response: Thank you. We have answered each point above.
2. The inclusion criteria should be defined more clearly in the text
Response: Methods section: we have clarified the inclusion criteria in the methods section.
3. Systematic review and meta analysis are relatively new and first papers go to late seventies in previous century. This should be considered when reviewing papers.
Response: Yes, it is a fairly new discipline, however it has been recommended to be evidence-based by the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for many years. Our aim was therefore to look at meta-research in a broad sense by using previously published studies investigating how large a percentage are using systematic reviews as justification when initiating new health science.
4. The risk of redundancy could not be well defined from the meta search papers rather it should be from the original articles . This would not be possible unless a focused issue is chosen as an example.
Response: Risk of redundancy can, in our perspective, be thoroughly assessed by the use of systematic reviews with meta-analyses included, and especially cumulative meta-analyses can pinpoint this in a specific research topic. Therefore, we agree that we cannot point it to a specific field but have taken this meta-research perspective to provide a more global status on the topic.
We hope you can follow our reasoning.
5. The different disciplines have different research out puts as the basis for systematic reviews which makes the comparison difficult
Response: In this paper, we did not look for the output, but the “input” so to speak, as we assess whether the authors have used justification by using systematic reviews, when initiating a new study in health science. We agree, it is important to define the aim and approach and the outcomes more specifically, if you look into a specific topic.
No changes to text.
6. I realize some studies are based on the disclosure of the authors whether they have used the previous systematic reviews or not. This should be confirmed by evidence.
These should be mentioned as the limitations of this work.
Response: We agree on this point and have clarified in the limitations that we have taken “the face value” reported by the authors in the included studies.
Changes to text: Discussion, Strengths and Limitations section:
This may raise questions as to the validity of our findings, as the majority of the meta-research studies only provide an indication of the citation of systematic reviews to justify new studies, not whether the systematic review was relevant, recent or of high-quality, or even how the systematic review was used. We did not assess this further either.
Submitted filename: Response letter_25042022.docx
19 Sep 2022
PONE-D-22-02383R1Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studiesPLOS ONE
Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
6. Review Comments to the Author
Reviewer #1: I am happy with the responses and thank the authors for their detailed replies, but just had 2 minor issues
This probably reflects my ignorance so apologies to the authors, but I still do not understand the relationship between the 95% CI around the pooled percentage, and the 'broad prediction interval' which follows it. Could they add a line to explain?
There are some typos remaining. The phrase 'regardless study type' should read 'regardless of study type'. There are some rogue apostrophes in the tables (SR's, RCT's) which need to be edited
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
Reviewer #1: No
21 Sep 2022
Response letter
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewer for the relevant comments concerning the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with these comments by addressing all issues from the editor and from the reviewers below.
Reviewer #1: I am happy with the responses and thank the authors for their detailed replies, but just had 2 minor issues
Response: Thank you very much.
Response: We have revised and explained more in detail and hope the revised text explains this more clearly.
Where the confidence interval showed the precision of the pooled estimate in a meta-analysis, the prediction interval showed the distribution of the individual studies. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis assessed by I2 was 94%. The clinical interpretation of this large heterogeneity is seen in a the very broad prediction interval ranging from 16 to 71%, meaning that based on these studies there is 95% chance that the results of the next study will show a prevalence between 16 to 71%.
There are some typos remaining. The phrase 'regardless study type' should read 'regardless of study type'.
Response: Thank you, we have revised as suggested.
There are some rogue apostrophes in the tables (SR's, RCT's) which need to be edited
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have edited this now.
On behalf of the author group,
Submitted filename: Response letter 20092022.docx
18 Oct 2022
Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies
PONE-D-22-02383R2
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewer #1: (No Response)
21 Oct 2022
Dear Dr. Andreasen:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Andrzej Grzybowski
When it comes to conducting research, a well-crafted justification is crucial. It not only helps you convince others of the importance and relevance of your work but also serves as a roadmap for your own research journey. In this blog post, we will focus on the art of writing compelling justifications, highlighting common pitfalls that juniors tend to fall into and providing an example of how to write a justification properly.
Before we delve into the dos and don’ts of writing a justification, let’s first understand why it is so important. A strong justification sets the stage for your research by clearly outlining its purpose, significance, and potential impact. It helps you answer the question, “Why is this research worth pursuing?” and provides a solid foundation for the rest of your work.
As junior researchers, it’s common to make certain mistakes when writing a justification. Here are a few pitfalls to watch out for:
Now that we’ve covered the common pitfalls, let’s take a look at an example of how to write a proper justification. Imagine you are conducting research on the low proportion of uncontrolled hypertension in a specific population. Here’s how you could structure your justification:
Introduction: Begin by providing an overview of the problem and its significance. Explain why uncontrolled hypertension is a critical health issue and the potential consequences it can have on individuals and society.
Background: Offer a comprehensive review of the existing literature on hypertension, highlighting the current knowledge gaps and limitations. Discuss the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension and the factors contributing to its low proportion in the specific population you are studying.
Objectives: Clearly state the objectives of your research. For example, your objectives could be to identify the barriers to hypertension control, evaluate the effectiveness of current interventions, and propose strategies to improve the management of uncontrolled hypertension.
Methodology: Briefly describe the research methods you plan to employ, such as surveys, interviews, or data analysis. Explain how these methods will help you address the research objectives and fill the existing knowledge gaps.
Expected Outcomes: Highlight the potential outcomes and impact of your research. Discuss how your findings could contribute to improving hypertension control rates, enhancing healthcare policies, or guiding future research in this field.
Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your justification and reiterate the significance of your research. Emphasize why your work is unique and necessary to advance knowledge and address the problem of low proportion of uncontrolled hypertension.
Remember, a compelling justification should be concise, persuasive, and grounded in evidence. It should convince your audience that your research is not only relevant but also necessary. By avoiding common pitfalls and following a structured approach, you can craft a justification that captivates readers and sets the stage for a successful research endeavor.
Leave a comment cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
It is important for you to be able to explain the importance of the research you are conducting by providing valid arguments. Rationale for the study, also referred to as justification for the study, is reason why you have conducted your study in the first place. This part in your paper needs to explain uniqueness and importance of your research. Rationale for the study needs to be specific and ideally, it should relate to the following points:
1. The research needs to contribute to the elimination of a gap in the literature. Elimination of gap in the present literature is one of the compulsory requirements for your study. In other words, you don’t need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and your research aims and objectives need to focus on new topics. For example, you can choose to conduct an empirical study to assess the implications of COVID-19 pandemic on the numbers of tourists visitors in your city. This might be previously undressed topic, taking into account that COVID-19 pandemic is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Alternatively, if you cannot find a new topic to research, you can attempt to offer fresh perspectives on existing management, business or economic issues. For example, while thousands of studies have been previously conducted to study various aspects of leadership, this topic as far from being exhausted as a research area. Specifically, new studies can be conducted in the area of leadership to analyze the impacts of new communication mediums such as TikTok, and other social networking sites on leadership practices.
You can also discuss the shortcomings of previous works devoted to your research area. Shortcomings in previous studies can be divided into three groups:
a) Methodological limitations . Methodology employed in previous study may be flawed in terms of research design, research approach or sampling.
b) Contextual limitations . Relevance of previous works may be non-existent for the present because external factors have changed.
c) Conceptual limitations . Previous studies may be unjustifiably bound up to a particular model or an ideology.
While discussing the shortcomings of previous studies you should explain how you are going to correct them. This principle is true to almost all areas in business studies i.e. gaps or shortcomings in the literature can be found in relation to almost all areas of business and economics.
2. The research can be conducted to solve a specific problem. It helps if you can explain why you are the right person and in the right position to solve the problem. You have to explain the essence of the problem in a detailed manner and highlight practical benefits associated with the solution of the problem. Suppose, your dissertation topic is “a study into advantages and disadvantages of various entry strategies into Chinese market”. In this case, you can say that practical implications of your research relates to assisting businesses aiming to enter Chinese market to do more informed decision making.
Alternatively, if your research is devoted to the analysis of impacts of CSR programs and initiatives on brand image, practical contributions of your study would relate to contributing to the level of effectiveness of CSR programs of businesses.
Additional examples of studies that can assist to address specific practical problems may include the following:
However, it is important to note that it is not an obligatory for a dissertation to be associated with the solution of a specific problem. Dissertations can be purely theory-based as well. Examples of such studies include the following:
3. Your study has to contribute to the level of professional development of the researcher . That is you. You have to explain in a detailed manner in what ways your research contributes to the achievement of your long-term career aspirations.
For example, you have selected a research topic of “ A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory in the US information technology industry ”. You may state that you associate your career aspirations with becoming an IT executive in the US, and accordingly, in-depth knowledge of employee motivation in this industry is going to contribute your chances of success in your chosen career path.
Therefore, you are in a better position if you have already identified your career objectives, so that during the research process you can get detailed knowledge about various aspects of your chosen industry.
My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.
John Dudovskiy
By charlesworth author services.
The rationale for one’s research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason(s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question (s) and the study objectives.
The rationale of a study can be presented both before and after the research is conducted.
The study rationale is predominantly based on preliminary data . A literature review will help you identify gaps in the current knowledge base and also ensure that you avoid duplicating what has already been done. You can then formulate the justification for your study from the existing literature on the subject and the perceived outcomes of the proposed study.
In a research proposal or research article, the rationale would not take up more than a few sentences . A thesis or dissertation would allow for a longer description, which could even run into a couple of paragraphs . The length might even depend on the field of study or nature of the experiment. For instance, a completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification.
Every research rationale should include some mention or discussion of the following:
Note: This uses a fictional study.
Abc xyz is a newly identified microalgal species isolated from fish tanks. While Abc xyz algal blooms have been seen as a threat to pisciculture, some studies have hinted at their unusually high carotenoid content and unique carotenoid profile. Carotenoid profiling has been carried out only in a handful of microalgal species from this genus, and the search for microalgae rich in bioactive carotenoids has not yielded promising candidates so far. This in-depth examination of the carotenoid profile of Abc xyz will help identify and quantify novel and potentially useful carotenoids from an untapped aquaculture resource .
It is important to describe the rationale of your research in order to put the significance and novelty of your specific research project into perspective. Once you have successfully articulated the reason(s) for your research, you will have convinced readers of the importance of your work!
Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.
Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.
To know more about our services, visit: Our Services
Sign up – stay updated.
We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
You have full access to this open access article
280k Accesses
15 Citations
710 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.
Explore related subjects.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.
We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.
Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .
Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.
Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.
In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.
The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.
The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap
The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.
The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.
Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.
Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.
Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig. 2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.
Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap
Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.
Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.
The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.
Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.
After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.
Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.
Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.
Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.
After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.
Checklist for manuscript quality
Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5
Article Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020
Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195
Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619
Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06
Download references
Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.
Not applicable.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Clara Busse & Ella August
Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA
Ella August
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Ella August .
Conflicts of interests.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
(PDF 362 kb)
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
Download citation
Published : 30 April 2020
Issue Date : October 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
I'm currently writing the methodology section of my thesis and wondered if I was including too much.
In the methodology section I have currently included:
This information is needed somewhere but it is resulting in a very long methodology which is going a lot deeper into "Why I chose this approach" than "Here's how I did the research".
Does this "Why" discussion belong in the methodology section of a research paper or should it be placed somewhere else? If so, where?
As an example: I can either survey people or perform an analysis of existing discussions on the topic. There are pros/cons to each approach (sample size, recruitment, etc) . The approach I choose will impact the research but I want to discuss the differences in the possible approaches and explain my reasoning for my choice.
Methodology section should focus on your own method (or algorithms or mathematical modeling) for the research.
Alternative approaches should also be discussed there in the same section precisely (if the alternatives are not highly different from the principal trunk).
The pros/cons of your approaches should be discussed in "Results and Discussion" or in the "Conclusion" section with points.
Why you selected the approach belongs to "Introduction" along with a small statement in "Methodology" itself.
Overall, methodology section tells the story of "HOW" rather than too much of "WHY". "WHY" should belong to introduction.
Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged writing methodology ..
Table of Contents
Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.
Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.
This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.
A research proposal¹ ,² can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.
With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.
A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.
Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³
Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.
The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.
The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.
The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.
Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.
If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹
1. Introduction
This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.
2. Literature review
This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.
3. Objectives
Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.
4. Research design and methodology
Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.
5. Ethical considerations
This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.
6. Budget/funding
Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.
7. Appendices
This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.
8. Citations
Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5
Key Takeaways
Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:
Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?
A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6
Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?
A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.
Q3. How long should a research proposal be?
A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.
Arts programs | 1,000-1,500 | |
University of Birmingham | Law School programs | 2,500 |
PhD | 2,500 | |
2,000 | ||
Research degrees | 2,000-3,500 |
Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?
A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7
Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.
This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.
References
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
How to write a phd research proposal.
The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Therefore, when undertaking new research, it is important to know and state why the research is being conducted, in other words, justify the research. The justification of a research is also known as the rationale. Writing the justification or rationale comes from an in-depth search and analysis of the existing literature around the topic.
The justification statement should include 2 to 3 paragraphs that convey the relevance of the over-arching topic in which the proposed research study is grounded. The purpose of this project is to examine the personal perceptions and safety concerns of workers in assumed low-risk. organizations.
Enhance the credibility of your research by properly justifying your methods in your thesis or dissertation.
The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the "purpose" or "justification" of a study.
In this resource, these elements are referred to as the research justification, the literature review and the research design. These three steps also structure, typically, but not always in this order, the proposal introduction which contains an outline of the proposed research.
The rationale for your research is the reason why you decided to conduct the study in the first place. The motivation for asking the question. The knowledge gap. This is often the most significant part of your publication. It justifies the study's purpose, novelty, and significance for science or society. It's a critical part of standard research articles as well as funding proposals.
The justification is also known as the rationale and is written in the Introduction. You may thus refer to these resources for writing the justification of your research: How to write the rationale for research? Can you give an example of the "rationale of a study"? 4 Step approach to writing the Introduction section of a research paper.
This paper examines how higher education researchers approach writing the rationale and justification for their work published in journal articles. A common way for establishing this justification ...
The justification to the part of a research project that sets out the reasons that motivated the research. The justification is the section that explains the importance and the reasons that led the researcher to carry out the work.
How can I write about the justification of my research - and what does it entail? How to write the rationale for research? How is research justification or justification of a study written? Hope that helps. All the best for your study!
Conclusion Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals. Go to:
Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your justification and reiterate the significance of your research. Emphasize why your work is unique and necessary to advance knowledge and address the problem of low proportion of uncontrolled hypertension. Remember, a compelling justification should be concise, persuasive, and grounded in evidence.
in this video Dr. Nelson, explains the importance, structure and content of a justification statement of a research proposal. To learn more about RineCynth A...
Rationale for the study, also referred to as justification for the study, is reason why you have conducted your study in the first place. This part in your paper needs to explain uniqueness and importance of your research. Rationale for the study needs to be specific and ideally, it should relate to the following points: 1. The research needs ...
The rationale for one's research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason (s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question ...
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common ...
It is an explanation of. the potential values that research has to offer—to science, policy and the study population. Social research justification is not just about identifying the ...
Research justification refers to the rationale for the research, or the reason why the research is being conducted, including an explanation for the design and methods employed in the research.
An important step when designing an empirical study is to justify the sample size that will be collected. The key aim of a sample size justification for such studies is to explain how the collected data is expected to provide valuable information given the inferential goals of the researcher. In this overview article six approaches are discussed to justify the sample size in a quantitative ...
If so, where? edit As an example: I can either survey people or perform an analysis of existing discussions on the topic. There are pros/cons to each approach (sample size, recruitment, etc) . The approach I choose will impact the research but I want to discuss the differences in the possible approaches and explain my reasoning for my choice ...
You can I provide a justification to your research topic by through literature survey stating urgent need of the research problem for the benefit society and mankind.
I'm doing a research project about the effects of online learning on students. So how can I write a Justification for it?
Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers' plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed ...
Need to write research problem and justification in research about the determinants of non performing loans