Table 2

Definitions of original research provided by editors

EditorIs systematic review an original study?Quote about definition of original research
E6NoI define original research as that which involved individuals and their data and secondary research as that which doesn’t.
E7Only with meta-analysisOriginal is what has not been published before.
E8YesTo me, to be a study it has to be done in accordance with criteria for the study in terms of scholarly inquiry, so that it can be replicated, people can use the same search terms, etc.
E9No…if we look at it as a scholarship of discovery, and Boyer’s model, I would not consider any type of systematic review to be original research.
E10NoA study that is hypothesis driven, that generates a new knowledge and applies appropriate methods to get there.
E11YesA study where authors generate hypothesis, proceed in formal manner, choose methodology, share results, discuss limitations, and provide conclusions. Also, where people deserve authorship for what they have done.
E12Yes…original study is the study that will generate new conclusion, new data, new information and that requires significant intellectual effort on the part of investigators.
E13YesI guess original research would be analyzing results and generating outcomes, or conclusions which haven’t necessarily been done by other people before.
E14NoAs an editor, an original study is a study in which someone produces data.
E15Only with meta-analysisA study that has new knowledge generated. New knowledge can also be generated through synthetic process of meta-analysis, but not qualitative data synthesis of systematic review without meta-analysis.