Evidence-Based Toxicology

New acceptance! (Don't forget, this is the same text as the version of record so you lose nothing by reading it now.) Congratulations to Milica Pavlović, MPharm and colleagues including Malgorzata Lagisz on their protocol a study of the reporting quality of systematic review protocols in toxicology and environmental health. Accepted manuscript is here https://lnkd.in/ediDj_Xc. Evaluation reports linked from comments below.

Brand new acceptance! Emily Senerth, MS, MPH, Lori Krammer, Volf G., Paul Whaley, Giffe Johnson, PhD, Katya Tsaioun, Rebecca Morgan, and colleagues have systematically reviewed approaches for the conduct of systematic reviews in environmental health. Fourteen frameworks were included in their critical interpretive synthesis. You may find their results useful if you need to select an approach for your review or are involved in developing resources to facilitate the uptake of systematic methods for reviews of environmental exposures. https://lnkd.in/eqVzHFwB

If you like peeking over a journal's shoulder, at EBT we publish regular status updates on our submissions. This includes links to the preprints *and* our evaluation reports. So you can see every decision we make, why, and how submissions evolve in response. https://lnkd.in/gC5uKRTC

Just in time for EBTC's inaugural Annual Meeting this coming Wednesday, we have published Thomas Hartung and Katya Tsaioun's brief history of evidence-based toxicology and the role and goals of the Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration. Enjoy! https://lnkd.in/ee2Dt9Dy

Risk of bias tool developers should be interested in this new paper by Gunn Vist and colleagues at the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM). They present an "item bank" database of bias concepts relevant for in vitro studies derived from the literature and from focus group discussions. This is intended as a general resource - this kind of work is unbelievably time-consuming, and no researcher should have to repeat it! https://lnkd.in/eg2Ynw7a

New acceptance! Gunn Vist and colleagues have published the results of the first step of the development of their INVITES-IN risk-of-bias tool for in vitro studies. You may recall the publication of their protocol. You can view the acceptance note here (which contains a link back to the preprint versions of the article and the accepted protocol). The authors did a fantastic job improving the manuscript such that it stands up on its own even for readers unfamiliar with the full protocol. https://lnkd.in/e3y53dZ2

New acceptance! Michelle Angrish and colleagues' protocol for a proof-of-concept study, assessing the use of machine learning to support data extraction in evidence synthesis projects. You can view the acceptance note here (which contains a link back to the preprint versions of the article). The authors did a great job of revising a manuscript type that presents some difficult technical challenges when writing up. https://lnkd.in/emSmcm6r

We are very pleased to see this important commentary in print - the authors were great to work with, the peer-reviewers very positive about the article, and we hope it was a good experience for everyone. If you want to see the reviewer comments, they are linked to in the footer of the PDF of the manuscript (we are working on making them more prominent). Congratulations to the author team of Reena Sandhu and colleagues!

It looks like we have a TOP Guidelines policy update incoming!

If you want insight into how we think about editing manuscripts at EBT, a lot of the policies we are implementing are based on experience editing systematic reviews. These lessons and strategies are summarised in this paper from Paul Whaley's previous editing job, when he was responsible for SR-type submissions for Environment International. By his standards, this paper is even relatively readable! (thanks to Nicolas Roth.) https://lnkd.in/enJHd-u9