Study offers insight on factors influencing choice of publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources.

New evidence published in BioMed Central’s Systematic Reviews provides some insights into authors’ experiences preparing and publishing systematic reviews, as well as factors that influence choice of publication arena, specifically Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources. Results suggest that authors of systematic reviews of child-relevant topics publish in Cochrane due to its positive reputation and impact factor. Reasons for publishing in non-Cochrane sources include lack of familiarity or challenges with the Cochrane processes and desire to publish in a source more directly relevant to the topic of interest. This study suggests that end users looking for evidence in the form of systematic reviews need to be aware that there is a vast number of systematic reviews published across the medical literature.

“The value of publishing systematic reviews in Cochrane was very evident. Cochrane authors valued the support, guidance and the technical resources offered. Even authors who did not conduct and publish their systematic reviews with Cochrane used Cochrane resources, such as The Cochrane Handbook,” says Dr. Lisa Hartling, lead author of the study.  "While this study may be limited by generalizability, we hope it provides some insight on the motivations of authors when they are deciding where to publish their systematic review.”
 
Related resources:
•    Publication of reviews synthesizing child health evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to identify factors associated with publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources
•    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions