Verifying authors’ claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers

Since 2018, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) has been assessing the conduct of globally published evidence reviews relevant to environmental management and collating them into the publicly available database – CEEDER. CEEDER is a free service to individuals or organizations who want their decision making to be informed by the best available scientific evidence. Hundreds of environmental reviews are published annually in a broad range of journals and organizations. As part of its evidence service, CEE critically appraises each review for its reliability (risk of bias), rigor, comprehensiveness, and transparency of reporting.

From data collected for CEEDER it is apparent that the large majority (over 95%) of published environmental reviews that claim to be Systematic Reviews actually fall short of the standards of conduct and reporting expected of this methodology as described by global evidence synthesis organizations such as Evidence Synthesis International, Campbell Collaboration and Cochrane, as well as CEE. This misnaming of a respected methodology risks undermining evidence synthesis and the value of properly conducted Systematic Reviews to inform decision making. To address this problem, CEE provides a Checklist for Editors and Peer Reviewers that covers elements of conduct and reporting that are expected in a Systematic Review.