scholarly journals Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. L. Cals ◽  
C. D. Mallen ◽  
L. G. Glynn ◽  
D. Kotz
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
General Medical Journal ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Review Reports

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.

scholarly journals Declaraciones del Comité Internacional de Directores de Revistas Médicas anexas a las normas de Vancouver

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
International Committee Of Medical Journal Editors
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Popular Media ◽  
Conflicts Of Interests ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Definition Of

These statements, which are published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in conjunction with the Vancouver standards, cover sorne of the legal, ethical, and practical aspects of the publication of research papers, and of the comments generated by them, in biomedical journals. Pollowing a definition of what constitutes a peer-reviewed journal, the roles of journal owners and editors are described, along with those of members of an editorial board, and procedural norms are set forth in connection with conflicts of interests, retractions or corrections, fraud, and breaches of confidentiality. Arnong the last topics explored are the problems involved in the dissemination of research results by the popular media, the handling of advertising within the journal, and the simultaneous acceptance of manuscripts whose authors have arrived at opposite conclusions regarding the results of a particular study.

scholarly journals Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Hybrid Mode ◽  
Optimal Price ◽  
Benchmark Scenario ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Review Model

AbstractGiven how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.

scholarly journals THE LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESTIGE AS AN INTERVENTION ON THE HEALTH OF MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS

Episteme ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole J. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Dual Role ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Limited Effectiveness

AbstractUnder the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication, the degree of prestige conferred to authors by successful publication is tied to the degree of the intellectual rigor of its peer review process: ambitious scientists do well professionally by doing well epistemically. As a result, we should expect journal editors, in their dual role as epistemic evaluators and prestige-allocators, to have the power to motivate improved author behavior through the tightening of publication requirements. Contrary to this expectation, I will argue that the publication bias literature in academic medicine demonstrates that editor interventions have had limited effectiveness in improving the health of the publication and trial registration record, suggesting that much stronger interventions are needed.

scholarly journals Editorial Peer Reviewers??? Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fenner
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
General Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Journal Papers

Peer review is central to how we evaluate science and therefore how journal papers, grants and jobs are awarded. Peer review is done in many different ways, and has dramatically changed in the last 25 years. ...

Issues and Best Practices Related to Ethical Writing and Publishing

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia R. King
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Financial Misconduct ◽  
Redundant Publication

Abstract For decades there have been several common ethical issues in writing and publishing that have plagued nurse authors and editors. These have included authorship, duplicate or redundant publication, conflicts of interest (including financial), misconduct, and peer review. These topics have been discussed independently and together, but it has not been until recently that appropriate guidelines or best practices have emerged. Nursing and other scientific journals have struggled with these issues continuously and now organizations (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and Office of Integrity) have developed guidelines and best practices to help authors and editors.

scholarly journals Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted toThe BMJover 4 years

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Loder ◽  
Stephen Loder ◽  
Sophie Cook
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Journal ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Journal Editors

ObjectivesWe sought to evaluate the characteristics and publication fate of improperly registered clinical trials submitted to a medical journal (The BMJ) over a 4-year period to identify common types of registration issues and their relation to publication outcomes.DesignResearch articles submitted toThe BMJand identified as unregistered or retrospectively registered by editors were included if they reported outcomes of a clinical trial. Relevant data regarding the trials were then extracted from each paper. Trials were categorised as prospectively registered, registered in an unapproved registry, unregistered or other, and explanations for registration deficiencies were grouped into six categories. We searched PubMed and Google to determine whether, where and when improperly registered studies were subsequently published and whether registration issues were disclosed.Results123 research papers reporting apparently unregistered or retrospectively registered clinical trials were identified. 110 studies (89.4%) were retrospectively registered, nine (7.3%) were unregistered, three (2.4%) had been registered in an unapproved registry and one study originally lacking registration details was later discovered to have been prospectively registered. 82 studies (66.6%) were funded entirely or in part by government sources, and only seven studies (5.7%) received funding from industry. Of those papers submitted toThe BMJthrough the end of 2015, 67 of the 70 papers rejected for registration problems (95.7%) were subsequently published in another journal. The registration problem was disclosed in only 2 (2.9%).ConclusionsImproper registration remains a problem, particularly for clinical trials that are government or foundation-funded. Nonetheless, improperly registered trials are almost always published, suggesting that medical journal editors may not actively enforce registration requirements.

scholarly journals Nursing research and bibliographic citation models

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Piqué Angordans ◽  
Ramón Camaño Puig ◽  
Carmen Piqué Noguera
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Bibliographic Citation

This research focuses on the analysis of how nursing journals publish their papers. Basically, two models are analyzed, Vancouver, by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and APA by the American Psychological Association. Their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. In view of how research papers are currently published and how research is judged, the authors propose that nursing journals adopt their own model, irrespective of how medical professionals publish.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document