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!
|
| _version_ | 1881909473877950464 |
|---|---|
| author | Audrey Rosenblatt Karen A. Domínguez-Cancino Catherine Chung Kelly Mecham Marsha J. Bennett Tyler Davis-Sandfoss Michelle S. High Patrick Palmieri |
| author_browse | Audrey Rosenblatt Catherine Chung Karen A. Domínguez-Cancino Kelly Mecham Marsha J. Bennett Michelle S. High Patrick Palmieri Tyler Davis-Sandfoss |
| author_facet | Audrey Rosenblatt Karen A. Domínguez-Cancino Catherine Chung Kelly Mecham Marsha J. Bennett Tyler Davis-Sandfoss Michelle S. High Patrick Palmieri |
| author_sort | Audrey Rosenblatt |
| collection | Producción científica |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| fuente_str | OpenAlex |
| fuente_tipo_str_mv | OpenAlex|Article |
| id | openalex:W7225990072 |
| institution | UPeU |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publishDateRange | 2026 |
| publishDateSort | 2026 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | openalex:W7225990072A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence mapsAudrey RosenblattKaren A. Domínguez-CancinoCatherine ChungKelly MechamMarsha J. BennettTyler Davis-SandfossMichelle S. HighPatrick PalmieriMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open AccessScoping 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.Articlehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00268-1W7225990072enResearch Integrity and Peer Review2058-86152026-11-13 |
| spellingShingle | Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access Audrey Rosenblatt Karen A. Domínguez-Cancino Catherine Chung Kelly Mecham Marsha J. Bennett Tyler Davis-Sandfoss Michelle S. High Patrick Palmieri A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title | A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title_full | A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title_fullStr | A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title_full_unstemmed | A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title_short | A framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| title_sort | framework for establishing prima facie validity and quality in scoping review evidence maps |
| topic | Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access |
| topic_facet | Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00268-1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT audreyrosenblatt aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT karenadominguezcancino aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT catherinechung aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT kellymecham aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT marshajbennett aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT tylerdavissandfoss aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT michelleshigh aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT patrickpalmieri aframeworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT audreyrosenblatt frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT karenadominguezcancino frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT catherinechung frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT kellymecham frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT marshajbennett frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT tylerdavissandfoss frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT michelleshigh frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps AT patrickpalmieri frameworkforestablishingprimafacievalidityandqualityinscopingreviewevidencemaps |