Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Amy Price; Sara Schroter; Mike Clarke; Helen McAneney

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Amy Price, Sara Schroter, Mike Clarke, Helen McAneney

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.

DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.

PARTICIPANTS: Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.

RESULTS: We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.

CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961036.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	e021753
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	8
Issue number	9
Early online date	24 Sept 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753
Publication status	Published (in print/issue) - 24 Sept 2018

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Attitude
Authorship
Biomedical Research
Checklist
Editorial Policies
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Internet
Peer Review, Research
Periodicals as Topic
Reading
Research Design
Surveys and Questionnaires

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753

Cite this

@article{9c004a80cc714d67a42e407452357358,

title = "Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.PARTICIPANTS: Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.RESULTS: We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961036.",

keywords = "Attitude, Authorship, Biomedical Research, Checklist, Editorial Policies, Guidelines as Topic, Humans, Internet, Peer Review, Research, Periodicals as Topic, Reading, Research Design, Surveys and Questionnaires",

author = "Amy Price and Sara Schroter and Mike Clarke and Helen McAneney",

note = "{\textcopyright} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",

year = "2018",

month = sep,

day = "24",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

pages = "e021753",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles

T2 - surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

AU - Price, Amy

AU - Schroter, Sara

AU - Clarke, Mike

AU - McAneney, Helen

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2018/9/24

Y1 - 2018/9/24

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.PARTICIPANTS: Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.RESULTS: We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961036.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.PARTICIPANTS: Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.RESULTS: We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02961036.

KW - Attitude

KW - Authorship

KW - Biomedical Research

KW - Checklist

KW - Editorial Policies

KW - Guidelines as Topic

KW - Humans

KW - Internet

KW - Peer Review, Research

KW - Periodicals as Topic

KW - Reading

KW - Research Design

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021753

M3 - Article

C2 - 30249629

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 8

SP - e021753

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 9

ER -

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this