Skip to main content

Table 4 Reviewer rating scores according to author’s claim of using reporting guidelines

From: Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation

Reviewer question Author said they used a reporting guideline to prepare their submission
No Yes P
Adherence to reporting guidelines 2.9 (1.70) 3.1 (1.48) .01
Clarity of presentation 3.3 (1.10) 3.3 (1.04) .64
  1. Authors reported using the following reporting guidelines: STROBE Strengthening-Reporting of Observational-Studies in Epidemiology, ARRIVE Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments, MIQE Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments, CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, REMARK Reporting recommendations for tumour Marker prognostic studies, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, STARD Studies of diagnostic accuracy, MOOSE Meta-analyses of Observational Studies, BRISQ Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality, STREGA STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies, an extension to STROBE; and CHEERS Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Some percentages do not add to 100 owing to rounding. Numerical values were given to each answer (SRG use, 1; no SRG use, 0) or reviewer rating (not applicable, 0; fair, 1; poor, 2; good, 3; very good, 4; and outstanding, 5), and mean scores are presented. P values were calculated using a two-sided paired t test