Adopted but untested: how systematic reviews apply and report the prioritization-and-sequential-exclusion approach — a cross-sectional methodological study of citing publications
- DOI
- 10.17605/osf.io/s9upz
- Published
- 2026
- Container
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- OSF Registries
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 47/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- supportingPublication license: A publication license was supplied: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode. Presence improves reuse transparency, not research validity.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.17605/osf.io/s9upz,
title = {Adopted but untested: how systematic reviews apply and report the prioritization-and-sequential-exclusion approach — a cross-sectional methodological study of citing publications},
author = {Víctor Manuel Pérez Cabrera and Rosa María Bermejo Alegría},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.17605/osf.io/s9upz},
url = {https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/s9upz}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Adopted but untested: how systematic reviews apply and report the prioritization-and-sequential-exclusion approach — a cross-sectional methodological study of citing publications AU - Víctor Manuel Pérez Cabrera AU - Rosa María Bermejo Alegría PY - 2026 DO - 10.17605/osf.io/s9upz UR - https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/s9upz ER -
APA
Cabrera, V. M. P., & Alegría, R. M. B. (2026). Adopted but untested: how systematic reviews apply and report the prioritization-and-sequential-exclusion approach — a cross-sectional methodological study of citing publications. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/s9upz
Source records
- datacite · retrieved 2026-11-05T00:53:57.097Z