Attack of zombie reviews? JBI Evidence Synthesis editors discuss the commentary “Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews”

Earlier this year Puljak and Lund published a commentary on redundant systematic reviews. In the commentary, they discussed the problems associated with redundancy in systematic reviews, while also acknowledging the need for research duplication (and the delicate balance between the two). They also outlined strategies to prevent unnecessary redundancy. Within those strategies, “zombie reviews” are mentioned (ie, protocols or registrations that are abandoned, with no subsequent review completed).

As senior editors of a journal that publishes a large volume of evidence syntheses (including protocols), we read this paper with interest, as the topics highlighted have been debated and discussed within this panel of editors and by the JBI Evidence Synthesis editorial advisory board. This article has prompted reflection on this issue based on our collective experiences as systematic reviewers, peer reviewers, editors, and systematic review trainers in the hope it can extend the current discourse on the topic. Our main focus of this commentary is to map how JBI Evidence Synthesis is currently addressing the prevention measures proposed by Puljak and Lund, as well as to provide additional considerations for readers and authors of the journal and the evidence synthesis community as a whole.