A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps
Scoping reviews map the breadth, characteristics, and distribution of research activity across a field, typically without the formal critical appraisal required of systematic reviews. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that “the literature” is a coherent and credible representation of the u...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Enlace permanente (DOI o Handle) Registro tomado de OpenAlex, que lo atribuye a la UPeU. Aún no está en el CRIS de la universidad. |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Scoping reviews map the breadth, characteristics, and distribution of research activity across a field, typically without the formal critical appraisal required of systematic reviews. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that “the literature” is a coherent and credible representation of the underlying science. In a publishing ecosystem marked by heterogeneous editorial standards, variable peer review, and expanding volumes of low-quality or poorly governed research, this assumption is increasingly untenable and may lead scoping reviews to overstate the validity of the evidence they represent. We conceptually interrogated the boundaries of “the literature” as an evidentiary construct and examined whether scoping reviews, as currently operationalized, implicitly overstate scientific validity. Drawing on existing literature concerning predatory publishing, bibliometric indicators, authorship behavior, and research integrity, we developed a structured yet proportionate framework of descriptive quality indicators that can be extracted alongside standard scoping review data items without imposing exclusion criteria or formal appraisal. The framework comprises three domains. Domain 1) Author Concentration and Publication Patterns—documents authorship concentration, publication velocity, self-citation, redundancy (“salami slicing”), and scholarly integrity signals such as retractions and corrections. Domain 2) Journal Provenance and Indexing Status—characterizes indexing category and stability, delisting, publication model, and journal-level integrity signals. Domain 3) Data Trustworthiness—captures six markers: ethics approval, prospective or retrospective trial registration, use of reporting standards, data collection dates, handling of retractions and corrections, and editorial responses. A proposed checklist operationalizes these indicators as simple extraction fields. The three domains provide a descriptive framework that enhances the interpretability of scoping review evidence maps by illuminating the conditions under which the mapped evidence was produced, disseminated, and maintained. Rather than excluding studies, the approach contextualizes credibility, strengthens transparency, and supports more informed downstream decision-making in research planning, policy development, and systematic review design. Integrating these contextual markers helps scoping reviews accurately represent both the contours and the credibility of the scientific landscapes they describe. |
|---|