Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.

Experiences of novice student team members in... | HRB Open Research dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); const cookieDomain = window.location.hostname; const tld = buildTLD(); function buildTLD() { const domainParts = cookieDomain.split('.'); while (domainParts.length > 2) { domainParts.shift(); } return domainParts.join('.'); } function deleteCookie(cookieName) { if (!cookieName) { return; } const cookiePath = (cookieName.startsWith('retraction_warning_') || cookieName.startsWith('version_warning_')) ? '/articles/' + cookieName : '/'; // Yes, these three slightly different ways to try and remove cookies are necessary document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=' + cookieDomain + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=.' + tld + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; } function deleteGroupCookies(group) { if (!group) { return; } const domainData = OneTrust.GetDomainData(), cookies = domainData.Groups.filter(cookieGroup => cookieGroup.OptanonGroupId === group)[0].Cookies; cookies.forEach(cookie => deleteCookie(cookie.Name)); } function OptanonWrapper() { const cookieConsentGroups = []; for (group of OneTrust.GetDomainData().Groups) { cookieConsentGroups.push(group.OptanonGroupId); } OneTrust.OnConsentChanged(function(e) { const cookieConsentActiveGroups = OnetrustActiveGroups.split(',').filter(activeGroup => activeGroup); cookieConsentGroups.forEach(group => { if (!cookieConsentActiveGroups.includes(group)) { deleteGroupCookies(group); }; }); }); } window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://hrbopenresearch.org/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'HRB'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); Skip to content HRB Open Research file_upload Submit your research search clear search menu close clear Search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Data Guidelines Prepublication Checks Production Process Article Processing Charges Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers National Steering Group Policies Glossary FAQs Contact Blog My Account Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74" }, "headline": "Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.", "datePublished": "2025-07-02T09:52:54", "dateModified": "2026-01-18T01:16:48", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sarah Dillon" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alex Gall" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Elayne Ahern" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aoife Whiston" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rose Galvin" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "HRB Open Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 566, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 127 }, "description": " Background Evidence synthesis plays a vital role in healthcare research, informing clinical practice and policy. Increasingly, students are involved in reviews, yet their experiences, including the challenges and facilitators for participation, remain underexplored. This study aims to examine the barriers and opportunities encountered by novice student team members in evidence synthesis. Methods This study is embedded within the Study Within A Review (SWAR) framework and will use a mixed-methods approach. Students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. Data will be collected primarily via focus groups, in addition to a short, embedded survey. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics will be used for survey responses. Results The study aims to describe experiences of students involved in evidence synthesis, identifying barriers and facilitators related to their participation. Findings will inform recommendations for improving evidence synthesis training, mentorship, and student engagement strategies. Conclusion Understanding student experiences in evidence synthesis may inform the development of targeted training and support mechanisms. The findings will provide valuable insights for academic institutions and research teams seeking to optimise student involvement in evidence synthesis. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2", "name": "Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis:..." } } ] } Home Browse Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Dillon S, Gall A, Ahern E et al. Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Revised Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Sarah Dillon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6659-2606 1,2 , Alex Gall 1,3 , Elayne Ahern https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9230-6776 2,3 , Aoife Whiston https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5910 2,3 , Rose Galvin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8171-224X 1,2 Sarah Dillon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6659-2606 1,2 , Alex Gall 1,3 , [...] Elayne Ahern https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9230-6776 2,3 , Aoife Whiston https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-5910 2,3 , Rose Galvin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8171-224X 1,2 PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2025 Author details Author details 1 School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 2 Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 3 Department of Psychology, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Sarah Dillon Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Alex Gall Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Elayne Ahern Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Aoife Whiston Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Rose Galvin Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Evidence synthesis plays a vital role in healthcare research, informing clinical practice and policy. Increasingly, students are involved in reviews, yet their experiences, including the challenges and facilitators for participation, remain underexplored. This study aims to examine the barriers and opportunities encountered by novice student team members in evidence synthesis. Methods This study is embedded within the Study Within A Review (SWAR) framework and will use a mixed-methods approach. Students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. Data will be collected primarily via focus groups, in addition to a short, embedded survey. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics will be used for survey responses. Results The study aims to describe experiences of students involved in evidence synthesis, identifying barriers and facilitators related to their participation. Findings will inform recommendations for improving evidence synthesis training, mentorship, and student engagement strategies. Conclusion Understanding student experiences in evidence synthesis may inform the development of targeted training and support mechanisms. The findings will provide valuable insights for academic institutions and research teams seeking to optimise student involvement in evidence synthesis. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Evidence synthesis, systematic review, novice researchers, student experiences Corresponding Author(s) Sarah Dillon ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Sarah Dillon Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was supported by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC Public Health Agency [Grant number ESI-2021-001] through Evidence Synthesis Ireland/Cochrane Ireland. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Dillon S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Dillon S, Gall A, Ahern E et al. Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.2 ) First published: 02 Jul 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1 ) Latest published: 18 Jan 2026, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This protocol has been amended in line with reviewer comments received. Main changes have been: (1) To clarify the educational level of students involved in the study. (2) To clarify that our interest relates to student involvement in multiple forms of evidence synthesis methods, rather than solely systematic reviews. This protocol has been amended in line with reviewer comments received. Main changes have been: (1) To clarify the educational level of students involved in the study. (2) To clarify that our interest relates to student involvement in multiple forms of evidence synthesis methods, rather than solely systematic reviews. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Gregory Whitley, Isobel Abbott and Georgia Charles See the authors' detailed response to the review by Laura Pickell See the authors' detailed response to the review by Maura Dowling See the authors' detailed response to the review by Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande READ REVIEWER RESPONSES  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Background Evidence synthesis is a critical research methodology in healthcare, providing a structured and transparent approach to consolidating findings across studies and identifying key knowledge gaps 1 , 2 . Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches 3 . Furthermore, evidence synthesis plays a central role in informing policy and practice recommendations. This is especially important in light of the association between the implementation of evidence-based decision-making and positive health outcomes 4 . Evidence synthesis is a popular methodological approach, with rapid increases in their publication in the past decade 5 . Although clear guidelines for the reporting and conduct of the varying evidence syntheses types exist 6 – 9 , quality is inconsistent 10 . One key factor influencing the quality and efficiency of evidence synthesis is the composition and expertise of the review team. Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework. The involvement of students in research brings with it numerous benefits. Student participation in evidence synthesis fosters skill development in systematic searching, critical appraisal, and synthesis methodologies, all of which are foundational in developing research competence. Moreover, the involvement of students in research projects enables the development of knowledge, which is often integrated into clinical practice 11 . However, novices may face unique barriers and facilitators during the evidence synthesis process, with more research needed to investigate what these are and how successful student participation in evidence syntheses can be nurtured. Addressing this gap is particularly relevant in the healthcare domain, where students engaged in evidence synthesis may later apply these skills in clinical practice, policymaking, or academic research. Given that health and social care students represent an important subset of end-users of evidence synthesis, evaluating their experiences with a view to improvement may enhance research literacy and encourage more healthcare professionals to contribute to evidence syntheses. Moreover, many clinicians return to education, completing postgraduate programmes as a form of professional development. It has been suggested that establishing and fostering partnerships with policy makers and managers may facilitate the implementation of systematic review findings 12 . Similarly, encouraging the participation of currently practicing clinicians in the conduct of reviews may enhance the relevance and impact of the output itself. Although numerous publicly available training resources exist to support students in conducting evidence syntheses, there has been limited research on their actual experiences, challenges, and perceived facilitators during the review process. Existing literature has primarily focused on early career researchers 13 . Yet, there is a distinct gap in understanding how students navigate the evidence synthesis process. Unlike early career researchers, students may have less access to structured mentorship, formal research networks, and methodological expertise 14 , which can impact their ability to engage meaningfully in evidence synthesis projects. Identifying factors that could either facilitate or impede student participation in these projects may help create a more supportive environment for their involvement and enhance the quality of outputs. Furthermore, examining students' experiences can provide insights into their learning journeys, the knowledge they acquire, and whether their learning is applied to practice. Aims and objectives This study is embedded within the Study Within A Review (SWAR) framework, an approach designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By embedding this study within a SWAR framework, the research aims to understand student experiences and training approaches. This SWAR aims to address the following objectives: Explore the experiences of novice student team members who have worked on/are working on evidence synthesis projects. Identify key barriers and facilitators influencing the ability of student researchers to contribute effectively to evidence synthesis projects. Methods Design This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, which spans many health-related disciplines and offers both undergraduate and postgraduate study opportunities. This SWAR will adopt a mixed method, embedded design 16 . A qualitative dominant approach will be taken, with quantitative data collection aiming to complement qualitative findings. For the qualitative element, focus groups will explore the experiences and opinions of students in relation to evidence synthesis. A constructivist approach will be taken, acknowledging the creation of meaning through interaction 17 . The quantitative element will consist of a short accompanying survey detailing demographic information and three Likert Scale questions pertaining to satisfaction with the evidence synthesis experience. Qualitative and quantitative elements will be collected concurrently. The topic guide and survey are available in Section 6, Extended Data. Given the primarily qualitative approach, the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) Checklist will be adhered to for qualitative elements 18 . The Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMs) will also be used to ensure transparent reporting 19 . In lieu of mixed method protocol guidelines, this protocol has been reported in accordance with established guidelines for qualitative protocol reporting 20 . Research team roles and experience This research team comprises five researchers. SD and AG will be involved in facilitating the focus groups. SD (BSc, PhD) is a Chartered Physiotherapist and an Assistant Professor within the School of Allied Health. She has experience in completing and supervising several evidence synthesis projects and has completed an Evidence Synthesis Ireland Fellowship. AG (BSc) is a student within the Department of Psychology, undertaking his MSc in psychology of global mobility, inclusion and diversity in society. AG has no previous experience completing evidence synthesis projects. RG (BSc, PhD), EA (BSc, PhD) and AW (BSc, PhD) are academic staff within the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences. Each of these authors has previously conducted and supervised numerous evidence synthesis projects. Reflexivity The backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences of the researchers collecting, analysing, and interpreting the qualitative data will be acknowledged. Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised. Participants and recruitment A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Procedure Students wishing to participate in the study will be asked to participate in a single online focus group and survey, led by members of the research team (SD or AG). Each focus group will consist of up to 6 students, in line with previous recommendations 21 . It is envisaged that 10–15 participants will be recruited across 3 focus groups. Focus groups will be used to explore the experiences of students who have contributed to an evidence synthesis, using an interview guide agreed a priori through discussion among the research team and consideration of previous literature. The focus group will explore topics such as satisfaction with evidence synthesis experiences, barriers and facilitators to completion, and applicability to clinical practice. Each focus group will be audio recorded and will be allocated approximately 1 hour. One interviewer (SD/AG) will be present at each focus group and will make field notes. Where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. Students will also be asked to complete a short custom survey (5–10 minutes in duration) (Qualtrics), detailing their clinical position (if any), evidence synthesis experience, and perceptions of the experience. Data analysis Focus groups will be transcribed verbatim by the investigators and verified against audio recordings for accuracy. Data will be analysed in line with Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis 22 , 23 . Two researchers (SD and AG) will independently familiarise themselves with the data by reading transcripts and listening to audio recordings. These researchers will independently code interviews using NVivo (Version 15), with subsequent comparison and discussion of codes, as well as the creation of themes emerging from the codes. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Limerick on 27/11/2024 (Approval Number: 2024_11_23_EHS). The information sheet explaining the study will be sent to interested participants to review. On the day of data collection, written informed consent will be collected via the Qualtrics platform. All participants will be notified of their right to withdraw at any time, up until data anonymisation. Minimal risks are anticipated for participants in this study. Dissemination The findings of this study will be disseminated via journal publication and locally via a “Knowledge Exchange Event”. Study status At the time of protocol submission, recruitment has commenced, with data collection on-going. Conclusions This SWAR aims to address a critical gap in the literature by exploring the experiences of novice student contributors to evidence synthesis projects, with a particular focus on the barriers and facilitators encountered throughout the process. As evidence synthesis plays an increasingly vital role in healthcare research and decision-making, it is essential to understand how students, both as current learners and future professionals, engage with this methodology. Findings from this SWAR will have implications for academic institutions and research teams seeking to involve students in evidence synthesis projects. The identification of key facilitators and barriers may be used to inform the development of tailored training resources, mentorship strategies, and support mechanisms to enhance student engagement and skill development. Furthermore, by increasing stakeholder literacy in evidence synthesis, this research may contribute to broader efforts to integrate evidence-based practice into healthcare education and clinical settings. Data availability Underlying data No underlying data are associated with this study. Extended data The OSF project contains the following extended data: Open Science Framework: OSF | Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: Barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future . https://osf.io/y5eh7/ 24 . The folder “Consent Form and Participant Information Sheet” contains the consent form and information sheet. The folder “Survey and Topic Guide” contains the survey questions and focus group topic guide. The folder “SWAR Registration” contains the published Protocol as per the SWAR Repository Store. The folder “Checklist” contains the qualitative protocol checklist 20 . Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CCBY 4 .0 Attribution International Deed). Protocol registration The Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research. SWAR Repository Store. SWAR registration for “Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: Barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future.” SWAR44 Sarah Dillon, Elayne Ahern, Aoife Whiston, Rose Galvin (2024 SEP 03 2359).pdf Reporting guidelines Data will be reported in line with the COREQ 18 and GRAMM 19 Guidelines. This protocol has been reported in line with the ObsQual checklist in the absence of mixed method protocol reporting guidelines 20 . Faculty Opinions recommended References 1. Flemming K, Noyes J: Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at? Int J Qual Methods. 2021; 20 . Publisher Full Text 2. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR: Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9 : 29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Booth A, Garritty C, et al. : Overview of evidence synthesis types and modes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025; 187 : 111970. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Connor L, Dean J, McNett M, et al. : Evidence-based practice improves patient outcomes and healthcare system return on investment: findings from a scoping review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023; 20 (1): 6–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. : Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138 : 1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372 : n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al. : From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J. 2010; 4 : 84–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. : Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017; 6 (1): 131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. : Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19 (1): 3–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. : Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12 : 181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Loura DS, Bernardes RA, Baixinho CL, et al. : Nursing students' learning from involvement in research projects: an integrative literature review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021; 75 (1): e20210053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Tricco AC, Cardoso R, Thomas SM, et al. : Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016; 11 : 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Ayala AP, Sikora L, Kirtley S, et al. : Barriers and facilitators for early career researchers completing systematic or scoping reviews in health sciences: a scoping review. Open Science Framework. 2019. Publisher Full Text 14. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S: Synthesizing qualitative research: reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17 (1). Publisher Full Text 15. Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, et al. : Study Within A Review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022; 15 (4): 328–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 16. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB: How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017; 69 (Suppl 2): 107–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Creswell J, Poth C: Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approache. 4th ed: Sage, 2018. Reference Source 18. Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, et al. : COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies). Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual. 2014; 214–26. Publisher Full Text 19. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13 (2): 92–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 20. Low GK, Subedi S, Omosumwen OF, et al. : Development and validation of observational and qualitative study protocol reporting checklists for novice researchers (ObsQual checklist). Eval Program Plann. 2024; 106 : 102468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Breen RL: A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2006; 30 (3): 463–75. Publisher Full Text 22. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3 (2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text 23. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? 2020. Publisher Full Text 24. Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future. Open Science Framework. 2025. https://osf.io/y5eh7/ Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 2 Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 3 Department of Psychology, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Sarah Dillon Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Alex Gall Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Elayne Ahern Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Aoife Whiston Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Rose Galvin Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was supported by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC Public Health Agency [Grant number ESI-2021-001] through Evidence Synthesis Ireland/Cochrane Ireland. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 18 Jan 2026, 8:74 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3 version 2 Revised Published: 10 Nov 2025, 8:74 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.2 version 1 Published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1 Copyright © 2025 Dillon S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Dillon S, Gall A, Ahern E et al. Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Grande GHD. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51931 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51931 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025 Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande , University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51931 The protocol is well-constructed, methodologically coherent, and appropriately aligned with its stated aims. The study design is suitable for addressing the research objectives, and ethical and operational considerations are clearly presented. But I have some concerns that the authors could ... Continue reading READ ALL The protocol is well-constructed, methodologically coherent, and appropriately aligned with its stated aims. The study design is suitable for addressing the research objectives, and ethical and operational considerations are clearly presented. But I have some concerns that the authors could improve for indexing. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Grande GHD. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51931 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51931 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 4 Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point: “Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.” Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure: “Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.” Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted: “Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.” We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines: “Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.” We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised: “Data Management and Storage The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention. ” Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern: “Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.” Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 4 Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point: “Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.” Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure: “Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.” Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted: “Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.” We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines: “Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.” We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised: “Data Management and Storage The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention. ” Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern: “Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 4 Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point: “Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.” Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure: “Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.” Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted: “Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.” We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines: “Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.” We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised: “Data Management and Storage The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention. ” Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern: “Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.” Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 4 Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point: “Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.” Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure: “Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.” Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted: “Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.” We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines: “Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.” We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised: “Data Management and Storage The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention. ” Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern: “Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Pickell L. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51377 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51377 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025 Laura Pickell , Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51377 This review examines the published research protocol entitled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review,” a study within a review (SWAR) exploring the experiences of students as novices conducting knowledge ... Continue reading READ ALL This review examines the published research protocol entitled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review,” a study within a review (SWAR) exploring the experiences of students as novices conducting knowledge synthesis research. The rationale and aims of the study are clearly outlined and accurate. An additional relevant scoping review by Premji, Hayden, and Rutherford (2021) may also be useful in further situating this work within the existing literature. (Ref 1 - Premji Z, et al., 2021) The study design is appropriate in addressing the study research questions and demonstrates strong alignment between the study aims, design, and planned data collection and analysis. A notable strength is the inclusion of strategies to enhance trustworthiness and transparency, such as reflexivity, the use of agreed-upon interview guides, adherence to reporting guidelines, and researcher triangulation in the thematic analysis. The protocol also demonstrates careful attention to ethical considerations. The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable References 1. Premji Z, Hayden K, Rutherford S: Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice . 2021; 16 (2): 111-144 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), health education, evidence synthesis and research methods instruction I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Pickell L. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51377 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51377 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 3 The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board. Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 3 The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board. Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 3 The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board. Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 3 The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board. Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Whitley G, Abbott I and Charles G. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51379 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51379 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Dec 2025 Gregory Whitley , Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK Isobel Abbott , East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Georgia Charles , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51379 Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript (Version 2), titled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review”. Along with two previous students of mine (Isobel Abbott and ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript (Version 2), titled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review”. Along with two previous students of mine (Isobel Abbott and Georgia Charles – novice students who have conducted evidence synthesis) I have reviewed this work and concluded that overall, the work is good quality. You have responded well to Reviewer #1. I have provided some comments below you may wish to consider – I believe these will improve the quality of your manuscript. Major comments include: None. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Whitley G, Abbott I and Charles G. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51379 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51379 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. This information has been inserted into the abstract section: Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence: “Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. We have inserted this into the background: “Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.” Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” We have made this amendment. “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)… ” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed: “Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.” Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. This information has been inserted into the abstract section: Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence: “Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. We have inserted this into the background: “Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.” Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” We have made this amendment. “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)… ” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed: “Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 18 Jan 2026 Author Response Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. This information has been inserted into the abstract section: Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence: “Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. We have inserted this into the background: “Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.” Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” We have made this amendment. “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)… ” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed: “Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.” Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. This information has been inserted into the abstract section: Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence: “Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. We have inserted this into the background: “Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.” Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” We have made this amendment. “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)… ” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed: “Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dowling M. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51350 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51350 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Nov 2025 Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51350 Thank you for addressing ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for addressing the queries raised—no further comments. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Dowling M. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51350 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51350 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dowling M. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15566.r49640 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v1#referee-response-49640 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Sep 2025 Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15566.r49640 Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis. The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis. The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group interviews and a short survey that ascertains students' experiences and perceptions. The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Dowling M. Reviewer Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15566.r49640 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v1#referee-response-49640 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Nov 2025 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 10 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which ... Continue reading Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. Sincere thanks. Best wishes, Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team. Reviewer: The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission. Reviewer: In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). Authors : Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students. Reviewer : The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line: “Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).” Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. Sincere thanks. Best wishes, Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team. Reviewer: The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission. Reviewer: In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). Authors : Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students. Reviewer : The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line: “Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Nov 2025 Sarah Dillon , School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland 10 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which ... Continue reading Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. Sincere thanks. Best wishes, Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team. Reviewer: The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission. Reviewer: In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). Authors : Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students. Reviewer : The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line: “Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).” Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. Sincere thanks. Best wishes, Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team. Reviewer: The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission. Reviewer: In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). Authors : Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students. Reviewer : The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line: “Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).” Competing Interests: N/A Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 3 (revision) 18 Jan 26 read read read Version 2 (revision) 10 Nov 25 read read read read Version 1 02 Jul 25 read Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, Ireland Gregory Whitley , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK Georgia Charles , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Isobel Abbott , East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Isobel Abbott , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK Laura Pickell , Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Canada Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande , University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Whitley G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Gregory Whitley , Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK Georgia Charles , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Isobel Abbott , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Whitley G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for addressing our comments. The work is much improved. Nothing else to add. Well done. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Whitley G, Charles G and Abbott I. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52945) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v3#referee-response-52945 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Grande G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande , University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2026 Grande G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The revised version demonstrates careful consideration of each point, resulting in clear improvements to the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Grande GHD. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52946) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v3#referee-response-52946 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2026 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions No further comments to make. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Dowling M. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52943) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v3#referee-response-52943 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Grande G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 2 Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande , University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2026 Grande G. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The protocol is well-constructed, methodologically coherent, and appropriately aligned with its stated aims. The study design is suitable for addressing the research objectives, and ethical and operational considerations are clearly presented. But I have some concerns that the authors could improve for indexing. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 4 Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below. Justification for the SWAR Framework Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification. Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Participant Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification. Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance. Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point: “Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.” Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure: “Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.” Bias Mitigation Strategies Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation. This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted: “Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.” We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines: “Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.” We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations. Data Management and Storage Procedures Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined. Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised: “Data Management and Storage The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention. ” Resolution of Coding Discrepancies The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis. This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern: “Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.” View more View less Competing Interests N/A reply Respond Report a concern Grande GHD. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51931) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51931 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Pickell L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 2 Laura Pickell , Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2026 Pickell L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This review examines the published research protocol entitled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review,” a study within a review (SWAR) exploring the experiences of students as novices conducting knowledge synthesis research. The rationale and aims of the study are clearly outlined and accurate. An additional relevant scoping review by Premji, Hayden, and Rutherford (2021) may also be useful in further situating this work within the existing literature. (Ref 1 - Premji Z, et al., 2021) The study design is appropriate in addressing the study research questions and demonstrates strong alignment between the study aims, design, and planned data collection and analysis. A notable strength is the inclusion of strategies to enhance trustworthiness and transparency, such as reflexivity, the use of agreed-upon interview guides, adherence to reporting guidelines, and researcher triangulation in the thematic analysis. The protocol also demonstrates careful attention to ethical considerations. The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable References 1. Premji Z, Hayden K, Rutherford S: Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice . 2021; 16 (2): 111-144 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), health education, evidence synthesis and research methods instruction I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 3 The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study. Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board. View more View less Competing Interests N/A reply Respond Report a concern Pickell L. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51377) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51377 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Whitley G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Dec 2025 | for Version 2 Gregory Whitley , Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK Isobel Abbott , East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK Georgia Charles , East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Whitley G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript (Version 2), titled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review”. Along with two previous students of mine (Isobel Abbott and Georgia Charles – novice students who have conducted evidence synthesis) I have reviewed this work and concluded that overall, the work is good quality. You have responded well to Reviewer #1. I have provided some comments below you may wish to consider – I believe these will improve the quality of your manuscript. Major comments include: None. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 18 Jan 2026 Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research. Reviewer 2: Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below. Minor comments include: There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion: Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited. This information has been inserted into the abstract section: Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript. We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol. Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research. Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence: “Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity. Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study. We have inserted this into the background: “Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.” Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means. Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised. Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol. Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout. Abstract: “This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.” From aims/objectives: “This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis 15 . SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…” Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …” We have made this amendment. “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)… ” Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied? Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section: “A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.” Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/ Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other? We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed: “Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.” View more View less Competing Interests N/A reply Respond Report a concern Whitley G, Abbott I and Charles G. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51379) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51379 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Nov 2025 | for Version 2 Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for addressing the queries raised—no further comments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Dowling M. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51350) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2#referee-response-51350 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Sep 2025 | for Version 1 Maura Dowling , University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dowling M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis. The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group interviews and a short survey that ascertains students' experiences and perceptions. The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Nov 2025 Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland Dear Dr Dowling, Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. Sincere thanks. Best wishes, Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team. Reviewer: The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)? Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission. Reviewer: In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed). Authors : Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students. Reviewer : The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well. Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line: “Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).” View more View less Competing Interests N/A reply Respond Report a concern Dowling M. Peer Review Report For: Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :74 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15566.r49640) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v1#referee-response-49640 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with HRB Open Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Experiences of novice student team members...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Dillon S et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74", templates : { twitter : "Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis:.... Dillon S et al., published by " + "@HRBOpenRes" + ", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-74/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/14154/15720") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "15720"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "51082": 0, "51083": 0, "51084": 0, "51085": 0, "51086": 0, "51087": 0, "51088": 0, "51089": 0, "51090": 0, "51091": 0, "51350": 12, "48278": 0, "48279": 0, "48280": 0, "48281": 0, "48282": 0, "48283": 0, "48284": 0, "48285": 0, "48286": 0, "48287": 0, "51376": 0, "51377": 20, "51378": 0, "51379": 17, "51380": 0, "51381": 0, "51382": 0, "51383": 0, "51384": 0, "49742": 0, "52943": 7, "49743": 0, "52944": 0, "49744": 0, "52945": 5, "49745": 0, "52946": 4, "49746": 0, "49747": 0, "49748": 0, "49749": 0, "48597": 0, "49750": 0, "48598": 0, "51927": 0, "49751": 0, "48599": 0, "51928": 0, "48600": 0, "51929": 0, "48601": 0, "51930": 0, "48602": 0, "51931": 17, "48603": 0, "51932": 0, "48604": 0, "51933": 0, "48605": 0, "51934": 0, "48606": 0, "51935": 0, "51936": 0, "49632": 0, "49633": 0, "49634": 0, "49635": 0, "49636": 0, "49637": 0, "49638": 0, "49639": 0, "49640": 27, "49641": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "c9224548-c40e-4231-9fa4-1386af6bcccf"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); Are you a HRB-funded researcher? Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research. First Name * You must provide your first name Last Name * You must provide your last name Email * You must provide a valid email address Institution You must provide an institution. Submit Thank you! We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research HRB Open Research Browse How to Publish About Contact RSS Cookie Notice Privacy Notice Legal Submit Your Research © F1000 Research Limited and its licensors ISSN 2515-4826 | Legal background var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "hrb", displayName: "HRB Open Research", hostName: "hrbopenresearch.org", id: "5", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]" }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); }); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ffb1b53f8abdf88',t:'MTc3OTQ0NTQyMA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();