One of the most important features of science is the debate between similarly qualified experts about the relative merits of a hypothesis or results of a study. The public debate between the physicists Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein over some aspects of quantum mechanics is one of the most famous examples of productive scientific debate. Despite their disagreements, Bohr and Einstein mutually admired each other, proving that scientific disagreements do not need to stem from or result in personal disagreements. In the Journal, we publish now 3 articles about the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, two by Jørgensen and colleagues (here and here) and a commentary by Bastian. The principal article by Jørgensen and colleagues is a systematic review and meta-analysis that reaches conclusions about the HPV vaccine that are contrary to current thought. The commentary by Bastian critiques this work on several points. We encourage everyone to read all 3 articles, and hope this will result in readers thinking critically about these issues.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Evidence Reviews
Edited by Dr Ivan Florez
Automation in the systematic review process
Edited by Prof Joseph Lau
Five years of Systematic Reviews
Overviews of systematic reviews: development and evaluation of methods
Edited by Dr Joanne E McKenzie
Sign up to receive article alerts
Systematic Reviews is published continuously online-only. We encourage you to sign up to receive free email alerts to keep up to date with all of the latest articles by registering here.
COVID-19 and impact on peer review
As a result of the significant disruption that is being caused by the COVID-19 pandemic we are very aware that many researchers will have difficulty in meeting the timelines associated with our peer review process during normal times. Please do let us know if you need additional time. Our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines but we intend to be highly flexible at this time.
We are recruiting new Associate Editors to join our international Editorial Board, helping to provide expertise on the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.
Aims and scope
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
We are pleased to announce that all the articles published in Systematic Reviews from 2018 onwards will be included in Web of Science, as part of the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
Peer review mentoring
The Editors endorse peer review mentoring of early career researchers. Find out more here
We are pleased to announce that Systematic Reviews is accepting submissions for a new thematic series on automation in the systematic review process.
Guest Edited by Professor Joseph Lau (Brown University, USA), this series will include articles about innovative uses of computer technologies in producing systematic reviews.
Conducting a systematic review of animal studies?
Systematic Reviews considers protocols and results papers of systematic reviews of animal studies relevant for human health. You can now also prospectively register these reviews on PROSPERO.
The editors and staff of Systematic Reviews would like to warmly thank our peer reviewers whose comments have helped to shape the journal.
About the Editors
Dr David Moher, Editor-in-Chief
Dr Moher is a senior scientist at the Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa. Dr Moher has been involved in systematic reviews for more than 20 years and has made contributions to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Dr Moher is associated with many journals, is a member of the advisory board for the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, and a member of the EQUATOR Network's steering group.
Dr Paul Shekelle, Editor-in-Chief
Dr Shekelle is a Staff Physician at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center and has served as the Director of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center for the RAND Corporation since 1997. He is also a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine. He is widely recognized in the field of guidelines, quality measurement, and evidence-based medicine. Dr Shekelle has extensive experience in the health care arena and was previously the methodologist for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ]) Low-Back Guidelines Panel, and he has participated in a number of other guideline development activities. He is currently the chair of the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Prof Lesley Stewart, Editor-in-Chief
Prof Stewart is Director of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. Prof Stewart has been involved in evidence synthesis in healthcare since the late 1980's, previously running the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit meta-analysis research program. Together with colleagues in Cambridge and Oxford, she helped establish the methodology and framework for individual patient data (IPD) reviews and was a founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration. Her research interests include the avoidance of bias and development of IPD methods and approaches to systematic review. Recently, she has instigated the development of PROSPERO an international register for the prospective registration of systematic reviews.
Annual Journal Metrics
140 days to first decision for reviewed manuscripts only
133 days to first decision for all manuscripts
223 days from submission to acceptance
20 days from acceptance to publication
1.692 - Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)
1.859 - SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
4.090 - CiteScore
2920 Altmetric mentions