Editorial Policies of Pediatric Journals

Meerpohl, Joerg J; Wolff, Robert; Niemeyer, Charlotte M.; Antes, Gerd; Elm, Erik von

doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.287

Cited by 56 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meerpohl et al (2010) reported that 78 % of pediatric journals required authors to disclose COI. Blum et al (2009) and Mathur et al (2013) discovered that journals with relatively high impact factors had easily accessible policies on disclosing conflict of interest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instructions for authors (IFA) need to be informative and regularly updated. We hypothesized that journals with a higher impact factor (IF) have more comprehensive IFA. The aim of the study was to examine whether IFA of journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports 2013, "Medical Laboratory Technology" category, are written in accordance with the latest recommendations and whether the quality of instructions correlates with the journals' IF. 6 out of 31 journals indexed in "Medical Laboratory Technology" category were excluded (unsuitable or unavailable instructions). The remaining 25 journals were scored based on a set of 41 yes/no questions (score 1/0) and divided into four groups (editorial policy, research ethics, research integrity, manuscript preparation) by three authors independently (max score = 41). We tested the correlation between IF and total score and the difference between scores in separate question groups. The median total score was 26 (21-30) [portion of positive answers 0.63 (0.51-0.73)]. There was no statistically significant correlation between a journal's IF and the total score (rho = 0.291, P = 0.159). IFA included recommendations concerning research ethics and manuscript preparation more extensively than recommendations concerning editorial policy and research integrity (Ht = 15.91, P = 0.003). Some policies were poorly described (portion of positive answers), for example: procedure for author's appeal (0.04), editorial submissions (0.08), appointed body for research integrity issues (0.08). The IF of the "Medical Laboratory Technology" journals does not reflect a journals' compliance to uniform standards. There is a need for improving editorial policies and the policies on research integrity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meerpohl et al . analyzed the online author instructions of 69 journals indexed in the subject category 'pediatrics’ of JCR 2007 with regard to endorsement of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) of the ICMJE, of five major reporting guidelines, disclosure of conflicts, and trial registration [18]. Only 16 (23%) of the included 69 journals either recommended or required trial registration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions

Hardt

Metzendorf

Meerpohl

2013

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTrial registration and the reporting of trial results are essential to increase transparency in clinical research. Although both have been strongly promoted in recent years, it remains unclear whether they have been successfully implemented in surgery and surgery-related disciplines. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in surgery journals requiring trial registration in their author instructions were indeed registered, and whether the study results of registered RCTs had been submitted to the trial register and were thus publicly available.MethodsThe ten highest ranked surgery journals requiring trial registration by impact factor (Journal Citation Reports, JCR, 2011) were chosen. We then searched MEDLINE (in PubMed) for RCTs published in the selected journals between 1 June 2012 and 31 December 2012. Any trials recruiting participants before 2004 were excluded because the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) first proposed trial registration in 2004. We then searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to assess whether the identified RCTs were indeed registered and whether the results of the registered RCTs were available in the register.ResultsThe search retrieved 588 citations. Four hundred and sixty references were excluded in the first screening. A further 25 were excluded after full-text screening. A total of 103 RCTs were finally included. Eighty-five of these RCTs (83%) could be found via the ICTRP. For 7 of 59 (12%) RCTs, which were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, summary study data had been posted in the results database.ConclusionsAlthough still not fully implemented, trial registration in surgery has gained momentum. In general, however, the submission of summary study data to ClinicalTrials.gov remains poor.

show abstract

“…Some journals have only recently required and/or printed COI statements and funding disclosure statements [17,25,26]. We identified current COI and funding disclosure policies for each of the journals in which our study articles appeared.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStrong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature.MethodsWe searched for articles that expressed opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We included articles that presented opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking and categorized each article as supportive or critical of such use. We extracted all arguments regarding the use of systematic reviews from each article and inductively coded each as internal or external validity argument, categorized disclosed funding sources, conflicts of interest, and article types, and systematically searched for undisclosed financial ties. We counted the number of times each article has been cited in the “Web of Science.” We report descriptive statistics.ResultsArticles that were critical of the use of systematic reviews (n = 25) for policymaking had disclosed or undisclosed industry ties 2.3 times more often than articles that were supportive of the use (n = 34). We found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives lacked published disclosures nearly twice as often (60% v. 33%) as other types of articles. We also found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives were less frequently cited in the academic literature than other article types (median number of citations = 5 v. 19).ConclusionsIt is important to consider whether an article has industry ties when evaluating the strength of the argument for or against the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We found that journal conflict of interest disclosures are often inadequate, particularly for editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives and that these articles are being cited as evidence in the academic literature. Our results further suggest the need for more consistent and complete disclosure for all article types.

show abstract

Editorial Policies of Pediatric Journals

Cited by 56 publications

References 44 publications

An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors

An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors

Surgical trials and trial registers: a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials published in journals requiring trial registration in the author instructions

Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About