Rejected authors' perceptions of the review process at a general medical journal

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Barratt ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Richard Smith
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
General Medical Journal

scholarly journals Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: a review of papers published in a general medical journal

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e043339
Author(s):  
Camila Olarte Parra ◽  
Lorenzo Bertizzolo ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Agnès Dechartres ◽  
Els Goetghebeur
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
General Medical Journal ◽  
Outcome Relationship ◽  
Causal Statement ◽  
Data Source ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Causal Language

ObjectiveTo evaluate the consistency of causal statements in observational studies published in The BMJ.DesignReview of observational studies published in a general medical journal.Data sourceCohort and other longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ in 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports.Main outcome measuresProportion of published research papers with ‘inconsistent’ use of causal language. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as ‘consistently causal’ or ‘consistently not causal’, respectively. For the ‘inconsistent’ papers, we then compared the published and submitted version.ResultsOf 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as ‘consistently causal’ (48%), ‘inconsistent’ (20%) and ‘consistently not causal’(32%). Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the ‘inconsistent’ papers were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions were mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented.ConclusionFurther guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these papers, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious ‘cause’ word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language.

Indexing the British Medical Journal

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-18
Author(s):  
Richard Jones
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Medical Journal ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Information Need ◽  
General Medical Journal ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Annual Index ◽  
Index Index ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
Number Of Authors

As a general medical journal, The BMJ contains a wide range of subject matter, and many types of information need to be incorporated in its semi-annual index. Index Medicus vocabulary can be used for clinical articles, but non-clinical matter presents problems of ‘soft’ language. A weekly publication, the BMJ runs to about 1600 pages a volume, so succinct indexing is important, as is keeping to schedule. The number of authors and the vagueness of journal users present particular problems that can be ameliorated by the design of the index. Medline is a useful adjunct for subject access. Both the journal and the index have changed during a decade in which social and political aspects of medicine have assumed greater importance.

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Editorial for the Inaugural Issue: Grande Medical Journal (GMJ)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakash Kafle
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Images

We are proud and honored to launch the inaugural issue of our new academic endeavor – Grande Medical Journal (GMJ), published by Academic & Research Department, Grande International Hospital (GIH). GMJ is an annual, open, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that encompasses all fields of medicine and clinical practice. GMJ will be published both in print and online. It will be freely accessible via the internet through GIH’s website with open access to the full text of articles. There will be no subscription fees to the readers or processing fees for the authors. Publisher and authors who publish in the journal will jointly retain the copyright to their article. The editorial policy of GMJ will be guided by the high standards of scientific quality and integrity, professional responsibility, and ethical legacy. GMJ follows double-blind peer-review process. This minimizes the possibility of a biased opinion ensuring a responsible and ethical environment. GMJ will be initially published as one issue per year, and with contributions from national and international physicians and scientists, we aim to increase the frequency to two issues per year. GMJ will publish original research, clinical review, invited reviews, case report, clinical problem solving, clinical images, short communications, and editorials. This inaugural issue features fifteen scientific papers - 1 invited review, 3 original researches, 2 clinical reviews, 1 clinical images article, 8 case reports. The editorial board is committed to get the journal indexed in major search engines, indices, and databases to increase their visibility/ searchability and recognition in wider scientific community. For us to achieve these goals, in the forthcoming issues we seek to publish original, high-quality, peerreviewed papers including original clinical and editorials, clinical reviews, and correspondence on matters that will provide comprehensive coverage on all aspects and subspecialties of medicine. We would like to thank everyone who has worked diligently behind the scenes to bring this inaugural issue to fruition. This launch of the GMJ would not have been possible without the contributions from authors, and experienced and devoted reviewers who willingly signed up for timeconsuming workloads and enthusiastically agreed to provide their critical input to the review process. Thank you all for your trust and support. Indeed, it is a real honor to serve as the founding editors. Sincerely Yours,Prakash Kafle, MSEditor-in-Chief

Purpose of the General Medical Journal

1972 ◽  
Vol 287 (20) ◽  
pp. 1043-1044
Author(s):  
F. J. Ingelfinger
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
General Medical Journal
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document