# Language inclusion intentions in scoping reviews

## TL;DR

This paper examines how often scoping reviews include research published in languages other than English and finds that inclusion is inconsistent and often relies on author language skills.

## Contribution

The study is the first to analyze LOTE inclusion intentions in scoping reviews, highlighting gaps in inclusivity and methodology.

## Key findings

- Just under half of the 249 scoping review protocols analyzed included LOTE literature.
- Many LOTE-included protocols relied on author language proficiency rather than formal translation methods.
- Only 30% of protocols that excluded LOTE planned to do so at the screening stage.

## Abstract

Research published in languages other than English (LOTE) is often ignored in evidence syntheses, marginalising diverse knowledge and global perspectives. While the extent of LOTE inclusion and the associated attitudes of LOTE inclusion amongst authors of systematic reviews has been well characterised, LOTE inclusion in other evidence synthesis forms has yet to be explored. Scoping reviews, in comparison to systematic reviews, examine a broader range of sources to build a conceptual summary of a field of inquiry, making LOTE literature an important source of information for scoping review authors. This study therefore aimed to characterise the current state of LOTE inclusion intentions in scoping reviews

Peer-reviewed, PubMed indexed scoping review protocols published from 01-Jan-2024 to 11-Aug-2024 were analysed for LOTE inclusion. Author affiliation, which LOTEs (if any) were included, and what methods authors planned to use to read LOTE literature were recorded.

Overall, LOTE inclusion intentions and attitudes were diverse, with just under half of the 249 protocols analysed including a LOTE. Many LOTE-included articles relied on the authorship team's own LOTE proficiency to gather evidence. Machine translation was also intended to be used in one quarter of the LOTE-included protocols. Only 30% of the exclusive protocols planned to exclude LOTEs at the screening stage, allowing for readers to identify the number of LOTE articles.

This analysis demonstrates the need for increased LOTE inclusion and reporting guidelines for scoping reviews, as well as the importance of analysing LOTE inclusion for other forms of evidence synthesis.