Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: Surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

BMJ Open

Volumn 8, Issue 9, 2018, Pages

  Price, Amy ^a   Schroter, Sara ^b   Clarke, Mike ^c,d   McAneney, Helen ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b British Medical Journal Technology Assessment Group   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CASE REPORT; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EDITOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; REGISTRATION; REVIEW; ATTITUDE; INTERNET; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; WRITING;

ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHECKLIST; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; READING; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85054071892     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018.
2. Adams CE, Polzmacher S, Wolff A. Systematic reviews: work that needs to be done and not to be done. J Evid Based Med 2013;6:232-5.
3. Schriger DL, Chehrazi AC, Merchant RM, et al. Use of the Internet by print medical journals in 2003 to 2009: a longitudinal observational study. Ann Emerg Med 2011;57:153-60.
4. Marcus E. Taming supplemental material. Cell 2009;139:11.
5. Maunsell J. Announcement regarding supplemental material. Journal of Neuroscience 2010;30:10599-600.
6. Pop M, Salzberg SL. Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications. BMC Bioinformatics 2015;16:237.
7. Borowski C. Enough is enough. J Exp Med 2011;208:1337.
8. Goldacre B. How to get all trials reported: audit, better data, and individual accountability. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001821.
9. Beebee L, McVeigh M. Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials - NISO RP-15-201x, 2012.
10. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
11. Anderson NR, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Bumgarner RE. On the persistence of supplementary resources in biomedical publications. BMC Bioinformatics 2006;7:260.
12. Schaffer T, Jackson KM. The use of online supplementary material in high-impact scientific journals. Sci Technol Libr 2004;25:73-85.
13. Flanagin A, Christiansen SL, Borden C, et al. Editorial evaluation, peer review, and publication of research reports with and without supplementary online content. JAMA 2018;319:410.
14. Kenyon J, Sprague NR, 2014. Trends in the use of supplementary materials in environmental science journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship http://www.istl.org/14-winter/refereed5.html (accessed 27 Nov 2017).
15. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One 2012:7:e35621.
16. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g3804.
17. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:MR000030.
18. Hanson B, Sugden A, Alberts B. Making data maximally available. Science 2011;331:649.
19. Hofner B, Schmid M, Edler L. Reproducible research in statistics: A review and guidelines for the Biometrical Journal. Biom J 2016;58:416-27.
20. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 2017;1:0021.
21. Greenbaum D, Rozowsky J, Stodden V, et al. Structuring supplemental materials in support of reproducibility. Genome Biol 2017;18:64.
22. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc for Information Science and Technology 2013;64:132-61.