Systematic Reviews as Part of Doctoral Theses and for the Promotion to Associate Professor : A Descriptive Study of University Policies in Sweden
Ringsten, Martin LU
; Styrmisdottir, Lea
LU
; Naesström, Matilda
; Johansson, Minna
LU
; Bruschettini, Matteo
LU
and Wallerstedt, Susanna M
(2026)
In Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods
4(1).
- Abstract
BACKGROUND: Almost a decade ago, about half of biomedical PhD programs across Europe specifically stated that systematic reviews could not be accepted as part of a doctoral thesis, illustrating limited merit value at that time. The aim of this study was to explore current Swedish university policies on this research design.
METHODS: Policy documents for PhD theses and applications to associate professor positions were obtained from all medical faculties at universities in Sweden. Instructions regarding systematic reviews, with focus on their merit value and related aspects, were independently extracted and categorized by two authors, with discrepancies resolved in consensus discussions.
RESULTS: All seven medical faculties... (More)
BACKGROUND: Almost a decade ago, about half of biomedical PhD programs across Europe specifically stated that systematic reviews could not be accepted as part of a doctoral thesis, illustrating limited merit value at that time. The aim of this study was to explore current Swedish university policies on this research design.
METHODS: Policy documents for PhD theses and applications to associate professor positions were obtained from all medical faculties at universities in Sweden. Instructions regarding systematic reviews, with focus on their merit value and related aspects, were independently extracted and categorized by two authors, with discrepancies resolved in consensus discussions.
RESULTS: All seven medical faculties accepted at least one systematic review within a PhD thesis, five restricted the number of such studies accepted, and five provided instructions regarding this study design. Regarding policies for promotion to associate professor, six medical faculties accepted at least one published systematic review to merit recognition-the remaining one required meta-analyses for acceptance-and three explicitly restricted the number of systematic reviews. No restrictions or guidance were provided for other designs intended to answer specific research questions.
CONCLUSION: As of 2025, systematic reviews appear to be generally recognized as contributing to authors' academic merit. For this research design exclusively, some universities impose restrictions that may limit their recognition, and some provide guidance which may help ensure quality in reporting. These findings may encourage research to evaluate the merit value of systematic reviews in other settings, and to examine potential implications of restrictions and guidance in policy documents.
(Less)
- author
- Ringsten, Martin
LU
; Styrmisdottir, Lea
LU
; Naesström, Matilda
; Johansson, Minna
LU
; Bruschettini, Matteo
LU
and Wallerstedt, Susanna M
- organization
- publishing date
- 2026-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods
- volume
- 4
- issue
- 1
- article number
- e70069
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:41552403
- ISSN
- 2832-9023
- DOI
- 10.1002/cesm.70069
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- © 2026 The Author(s). Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
- id
- 149d2fb6-9b6f-41cc-96d3-7066d3f4498d
- date added to LUP
- 2026-08-26 12:42:16
- date last changed
- 2026-08-27 03:34:21
@article{149d2fb6-9b6f-41cc-96d3-7066d3f4498d,
abstract = {{<p>BACKGROUND: Almost a decade ago, about half of biomedical PhD programs across Europe specifically stated that systematic reviews could not be accepted as part of a doctoral thesis, illustrating limited merit value at that time. The aim of this study was to explore current Swedish university policies on this research design.</p><p>METHODS: Policy documents for PhD theses and applications to associate professor positions were obtained from all medical faculties at universities in Sweden. Instructions regarding systematic reviews, with focus on their merit value and related aspects, were independently extracted and categorized by two authors, with discrepancies resolved in consensus discussions.</p><p>RESULTS: All seven medical faculties accepted at least one systematic review within a PhD thesis, five restricted the number of such studies accepted, and five provided instructions regarding this study design. Regarding policies for promotion to associate professor, six medical faculties accepted at least one published systematic review to merit recognition-the remaining one required meta-analyses for acceptance-and three explicitly restricted the number of systematic reviews. No restrictions or guidance were provided for other designs intended to answer specific research questions.</p><p>CONCLUSION: As of 2025, systematic reviews appear to be generally recognized as contributing to authors' academic merit. For this research design exclusively, some universities impose restrictions that may limit their recognition, and some provide guidance which may help ensure quality in reporting. These findings may encourage research to evaluate the merit value of systematic reviews in other settings, and to examine potential implications of restrictions and guidance in policy documents.</p>}},
author = {{Ringsten, Martin and Styrmisdottir, Lea and Naesström, Matilda and Johansson, Minna and Bruschettini, Matteo and Wallerstedt, Susanna M}},
issn = {{2832-9023}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
series = {{Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods}},
title = {{Systematic Reviews as Part of Doctoral Theses and for the Promotion to Associate Professor : A Descriptive Study of University Policies in Sweden}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70069}},
doi = {{10.1002/cesm.70069}},
volume = {{4}},
year = {{2026}},
}