The relationship between endorsing reporting guidelines or trial registration and the impact factor or total citations in surgical journals

Abstract

Background A journal’s impact factor (IF) and total citations are often used as indicators of its publication quality. Furthermore, journals that require authors to abide by reporting guidelines or conduct trial registration generally have a higher quality of reporting. In this study, we sought to explore the potential associations between the enforcement of reporting guidelines or trial registration and a surgical journal’s IF or total citations in order to find new approaches and ideas to improve journal publication quality. Methods We examined surgical journals from the 2018 Journal Citation Report’s Expanded Scientific Citation Index to quantify the use of reporting guidelines or study registration. We reviewed the “instructions for authors” from each journal and used multivariable linear regression analysis to determine which guidelines were associated with the journal IF and total citations. The dependent variable was the logarithm base 10 of the IF in 2018 or the logarithm base 10 of total citations in 2018 (the results were presented as geometric means, specifically the ratio of the “endorsed group” results to “not endorsed group” results). The independent variable was one of the requirements (endorsed and not endorsed). Models adjust for the publication region, language, start year, publisher and journal size (only used to adjust total citations). Results We included 188 surgical journals in our study. The results of multivariable linear regression analysis showed that journal IF was associated (P < 0.01) with the following requirements: randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration (geometric means ratio (GR) = 1.422, 95% CI [1.197–1.694]), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (1.318, [1.104–1.578]), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (1.390, [1.148–1.683]), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (1.556, [1.262–1.919]), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (1.585, [1.216–2.070]), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement (2.113, [1.422–3.133]). We found associations between the endorsement of RCT registration (GR = 1.652, 95% CI [1.268–2.153]), CONSORT (1.570, [1.199–2.061]), PRISMA (1.698, [1.271–2.270]), STROBE (2.023, [1.476–2.773]), STARD (2.173, [1.452–3.243]), and MOOSE statements (2.249, [1.219–4.150]) and the number of total citations. Conclusion The presence of reporting guidelines and trial registration was associated with higher IF or more total citations in surgical journals. If more surgical journals incorporate these policies into their submission requirements, this may improve publication quality, thus increasing their IF and total citations.