Journal instructions to authors submitting veterinary systematic reviews are inconsistent and often inadequate.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To survey academic journals for the presence and clarity of author instructions for submitting veterinary systematic reviews. METHODS: Instructions to authors for submitting systematic reviews were surveyed across the 10 academic journals publishing the greatest number of veterinary systematic reviews listed in VetSRev, a citation database exclusively listing systematic reviews of topics relevant to veterinary medicine. Two investigators independently reviewed each author instructions section to answer predetermined survey questions. Data were collected and reviewed from October 21, 2023, through April 9, 2024. RESULTS: Instructions to authors varied across journals, and the requirements for compliance with established reporting guidelines (eg, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) were inconsistent. Four of 10 journals clearly stated the need to follow systematic reporting guidelines, 4 recommended or encouraged the use of guidelines, and 2 had no specific instructions for systematic reviews or reporting guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Instructions for authors submitting veterinary medical systematic reviews are often incomplete or unclear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the absence of clear and consistent journal requirements for compliance with established systematic review reporting guidelines, the risk of publishing bias or misleading systematic reviews may be increased, which may negatively impact clinical decision making. Ensuring clear and concise instructions for authors will improve the quality of evidence and reporting. Greater clarity and consistency of author instructions and reporting requirements across all journals and increasing author awareness of the need to use reporting guidelines will improve the quality of veterinary systematic reviews.