Do Addiction Science Journals Endorse Unbiased Reporting of Research? A Systematic Evaluation of Instructions for Authors.

Introduction: Well-structured instructions for authors in journals help researchers in reporting unbiased results, which subsequently facilitates the review process. There have been reports of systematic evaluations of instructions for authors from journals in various medical specialties. However, precise information on the nature and extent of these instructions for authors in addiction science is lacking. Hence, this study systematically evaluated the instructions for authors for journals in addiction science. Methods: A total of 1139 journal titles were retrieved across multiple databases. Finally, 88 exclusive titles fulfilling the eligibility criteria were considered in this study. The four domains evaluated were journal characteristics, reporting, statistical reporting, and ethical requirements. Results: More than half of the journals were published by academic institutions or professional societies. Less than one-fourth of the journals endorsed adherence to various reporting guidelines and endorsed the Consolidated Statements on Randomized Controlled Trials guidelines to the maximum level (14.8%). Approximately, half (48.9%) of the journals had a separate section on "statistical analysis." The various parameters of statistical reporting were suboptimally endorsed. Conclusion/Importance: The instructions for authors in addiction science journals provide insufficient information in various domains. There is an urgent need to improve the author instructions segment of addiction science journals so that the process of research dissemination can occur more effectively. A higher rate of endorsement of various reporting guidelines and statistical reporting may help to minimize reporting bias as well as prevent unnecessary delays in the publication of important research findings.