Systematic Reviews Across Disciplines: Comparing Quality and Publication Practices

As the publication of systematic reviews has proliferated across the sciences in the past decade, librarians have a role in helping researchers select the appropriate type of review, providing best practice guidelines, and understanding variations in disciplinary practices for evidence synthesis. Using a title-abstract search filtered by 10 research areas in the Web of Science, we collected a sample of 100 systematic reviews from a range of disciplines, including “Fisheries,” “Forestry,” “Health Care Sciences & Services,” and “Veterinary Sciences.” Our analysis of this data explores to what extent these articles include the basic components of a systematic review and adhere to best practice guidelines for reporting. We compare the inclusion of components of reviews by research area and analyze their correlation with journal impact factors and citation rates. The findings highlight problems with inconsistent use of common components in systematic reviews, review typology identification and selection, and methodological rigor. Understanding evidence synthesis practices and publication trends across science disciplines will guide librarians in engaging more effectively with the science researchers they support. This analysis may help librarians articulate common mistakes in reporting practices, identify editorial issues, and build awareness of variations in the synthesis rigor and publication cultures across the sciences.