Better Science, Better Science Reporting

There are two main reasons that articles submitted to Healthcare Policy/Politiques de Santé are rejected before going to peer review: they are outside the scope of the journal's mandate or they do not follow established quality guidelines for research reporting. The latter are evolving and expanding over time, as illustrated by the fact that the EQUATOR Network now includes 345 guidelines in their library (Equator Network n.d.).

At Healthcare Policy/Politiques de Santé, we have recently added guidelines for Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) to our journal's policies (Heidari et al. 2016). Sex (biological attributes) and gender (socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities) are deeply individual. They also matter collectively, including influencing patterns of health and disease. In some cases, sex and/or gender differences are well established. In others, their impact influence is subtle, complex and occasionally unexpected. But in many – perhaps most – cases, the effects are simply unknown. Researchers have not yet asked the necessary questions or reported the data needed to know the answers.

The new SAGER guidelines are designed to change that. They recognize that high quality research takes important factors that can influence outcomes into account. The guidelines are part of a broader portfolio of tools (CIHR 2016), including research funding requirements and educational resources, designed to make health research more rigorous and more useful by increasing integration of gender and sex considerations into the research process, when appropriate.

As a result, we encourage authors to follow the SAGER guidelines and to consider sex and gender in their studies, where relevant. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background, where relevant, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and gender analysis was not conducted when it reasonably could have been, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. To operationalize this policy, we have added information to this effect to the instructions for authors and for reviewers.

This decision is part of our journal's commitment to our readers and to our authors that we will continue to foster better research and better research reporting. Please join us in this journey by encouraging your colleagues and contacts to review and use established quality guidelines for research reporting.