Adding reporting guidelines for nutrition in the EJCN instructions to authors, some considerations and caveats
Editorial
Carl Lachat*, Dana Hawwash
Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium,
* Corresponding author
Ghent University, Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Coupure links 653, 9000 Gent-Belgium
+32 9 264 9377 [email protected]
Funding
There was no outside funding for this study.
Competing interests
Carl Lachat and Dana Hawwash are member of the consortium that developed STROBE-nut and authored related manuscripts. There are no other competing interests.
Abbreviations
STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; STROBE- nut: STROBE Extension for Nutritional Epidemiology
Introduction
Incomplete reporting is an avoidable source of research waste. An assessment of biomedical literature in 2014 estimated that the large majority of research funding provided little or no value1. An important contributor to this waste is failure to include all relevant information during the write-up and publication of findings. Lack of information is an important constraint to help readers understand what is done and found, and to assess evidence for evidence-based recommendations for research, policy and practice. Various systematic reviews in nutrition have reported that original studies could not be considered due to absence of essential information. In an effort to address this, reporting guidelines were developed.
Reporting guidelines are useful tools to ensure completeness of reporting and aim to assist as tool to assist researchers during the write-up of study findings. In addition, they could
facilitate the peer review and editorial process as they direct readers to key elements of the study. Various reporting guidelines are summarized as a checklist, submitted together with the manuscript. The checklist indicates where reviewers and editors can find the different items described in a manuscript. Some journals require authors to submit a checklist as supplementary material during the submission process. Although reporting guidelines could provide an estimate of reporting completeness, they are not appropriate to asses quality of studies or grading evidence.
To date, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network hosts over 400 reporting guidelines2, of which Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) are the most widely cited ones. To improve reporting quality in nutrition, STROBE-nut was published in
items that apply for nutritional epidemiology and dietary assessment. A complementary paper with elaborations and examples was published soon after4. STROBE-nut has been included as a reporting guideline in EQUATOR and part of the instructions for authors of several
journals. It is also under consideration by other journals such European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Referring to reporting guidelines in instructions for authors provides a powerful incentive for authors to consult and use reporting guidelines. Authors of observational studies reported that including it in the instructions of authors and mandatory submission of a checklist were the key motivators to use STROBE5.
Including reporting guidelines in journal instructions for authors however, requires careful consideration. It is important to realise that the use of reporting guideline potentially adds to existing workload of those involved in the publication process ie. authors, reviewers and editors. Without careful consideration, enforcement of reporting guidelines, in particular making the application of the checklist mandatory during submission, could miss its purpose and stimulate a culture of paper polishing to ensure checklist adherence rather than a careful consideration for research quality through the entire research process. Authors should be encouraged to apply reporting guidelines throughout the writing process, in an overall appreciation of scientific rigor but also fostering clarity, creativity of academic writing.
We therefore suggest that the introduction of reporting guidelines for authors in journals is accompanied with clear instructions on its correct use for authors, reviewers and editors.
In addition, adherence to reporting guidelines is not a quick fix and needs to be part of a larger effort to address quality of research, involving interventions at different steps of the research process. We therefore recommend to considered the inclusion of reporting guidelines in the instructions for author as part of a wider narrative to foster research excellence and learning. In addition, care should be taken to monitor usefulness, burden on the users and added value to the research process and culture. Research excellence, including efforts to ensure optimal presentation of research findings, is a dynamic process, involving various stakeholders that requires continuous attention and effort. Regular updates and scrutiny of timeliness and relevance of the recommendations is required. Sharing user experiences, good practices and continuous efforts to develop innovative methods to
administer tools to improve quality of research are necessary. We welcome contributions and reflections to the use of reporting guidelines such as STROBE-nut, improve quality of
academic writing and its contribution to advance nutrition research. We are particularly interested to learn from researchers who did a systematic review and receive information on specific sections in the manuscripts reviewed that had missing information for the review.
Such feedback will help to help prioritize items during the revisions of the STROBE-nut guidelines.
References
1 Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, JeffersonT, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014; 383: 257–266
2 https://www.equator-network.org/
(STROBE-nut): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med 2016; 13:
e1002036
4 Hörnell A, Berg A, Forsum E, Larsson C, Sonestedt E, Åkesson A, et al. Perspectives:
An extension of the STROBE statement for observational studies in nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut): Explanation and elaboration. Adv Nutrition 2017; 8:
652–678
5 Sharp MK, Bertizzolo L, Rius R, Wager E, Guadaupe Gómez G, Hren D. Using the STROBE statement: Survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2019: doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.019
