Inconsistent views among systematic review authors towards publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey.

Abstract Objective To explore views of authors of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in PROSPERO towards publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles. Study Design and Setting Contact persons of all PROSPERO records for non-Cochrane SRs registered in 2018 (N=12,531) were invited to participate in an anonymous 5-minute online survey that was administered through SurveyMonkey. The main question addressed SR authors’ views towards publishing SR protocols as peer-reviewed articles. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results In total, 4,223/12,531 (33.7%) invitees responded, of which 3,739/4,223 (88.5%) completed the survey. Almost half of the international respondents had published or planned to publish a protocol for the SR described in their PROSPERO record as a peer-reviewed article (1,811/4,054; 44.7%). Most respondents agreed that publishing a protocol in a peer-reviewed journal increases SR quality as reviewers get external feedback from peer-reviewers (2,899/3,739; 77.5%) but at the same time agreed that it is not necessary if the SR is registered in PROSPERO (2,399/3,739; 64.2%). Conclusion SR authors seem to have inconsistent views towards publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles and many seem to consider registration in PROSPERO (without peer-review) sufficient. Hence, awareness about benefits of publishing protocols as a peer-reviewed article in addition to registration in PROSPERO should be raised.