Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals.

CONTEXT To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. METHODS We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. RESULTS Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F(2,391) = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P =.02), figures (P =.01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P =.01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.

[1]  D. Rennie,et al.  Throw it away, Sam: the controlled circulation journals. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  A. Flanagin,et al.  JAMA's New Look: A New Year's Gift to Readers , 1999 .

[3]  N. W. Goodman.  Too many words? Mozart 1, Emperor 0. , 1995, JAMA.

[4]  F. Davidoff.  Annals Now and Then , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  R Smith,et al.  Redesigning the journal: having your say , 1996, BMJ.

[6]  R. Fletcher,et al.  Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. , 1994, JAMA.

[7]  M. Cho,et al.  The Quality of Drug Studies Published in Symposium Proceedings , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  K A McKibbon,et al.  Locating and Appraising Systematic Reviews , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  L. Bero,et al.  Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke , 1997, Tobacco Control.

[10]  D. Finkelstein.  Oh, the times! Tabloids and other non-peer-reviewed publications. , 1985, Archives of ophthalmology.

[11]  R. Gunning.  The Technique of Clear Writing. , 1968 .

[12]  C. Mulrow.  The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[13]  P. Rochon,et al.  Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. , 1994, JAMA.

[14]  L. Bero,et al.  Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. , 1998, JAMA.

[15]  A. Soffer.  What is a 'practical' clinical journal? , 1980, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[17]  M. Meade,et al.  How to keep up with the critical care literature and avoid being buried alive. , 1996, Critical care medicine.

[18]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Agreement among reviewers of review articles. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.