Policies of dental journals for reporting and monitoring authorship and contributorship

Faggion, Clóvis Mariano

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.721

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average number of authors per article showed a well‐defined and constant increase during the last 15 years. Unfortunately, this study was not designed to assess the reasons behind such an increase, and one can only speculate that these are the same ones discussed by other authors 3,5‐10 . However, it is conceivable that the increase in interprofessional collaborations might be a factor for the increase in the number of authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The increase in number of publications is frequently paired with an increase in the average number of authors involved in the investigation 2‐5 . Different theories have been proposed to explain the increasing number of authors per publication, such as: 1) the increased complexity of the research itself; 2) the increase in multicenter (interuniversity and intercontinental) collaborations; 3) the joy of collaboration; 4) promotion and/or tenure considerations; 5) the development of new technologies and techniques for patient care; and 6) “dilution” of authorship 3,5‐13 . Although several authors have criticized dilution of authorship as a major factor, 14,15 recently the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed stricter and more well‐defined criteria for authorship and contributorship 16 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although several authors have criticized dilution of authorship as a major factor, 14,15 recently the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed stricter and more well‐defined criteria for authorship and contributorship 16 . It should be noted that these guidelines have been followed only partially by peer‐reviewed dental journals 7 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010

Geminiani

Ercoli

Feng

et al. 2014

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010

Geminiani

Ercoli

Feng

et al. 2014

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess policies related to the research waste of studies published in leading dental journals and to explore factors associated with usage. Given that our sample incorporated journals that were indexed in MEDLINE but not in SCIE, our sample was already more comprehensive than those of previous studies on editorial policies in dentistry (Faggion, ; Smail‐Faugeron et al, ) and other medical specialties (Knuppel et al, ; Kunath et al, ; Meerpohl et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To study whether specific recommendations aimed at reducing avoidable research waste were included in the author instructions of leading dental journals. Method We identified 109 peer‐reviewed and original research‐oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2018. Two authors extracted independently information regarding the endorsement of reporting guidelines (RGs), ICMJE recommendations, trial or systematic review registration, and open access (OA) and data sharing policies. Result All 109 journals provided online “instructions to authors,” among which 64 journals (58.7%) mentioned RGs. The ICMJE recommendations were endorsed by 74 journals (67.9%), and trial and systematic review registration were mentioned by 48 (44.0%) and 6 (5.5%) of the journals, respectively. In terms of OA, most journals stated they were hybrid OA (82.0%) and direct OA (15.4%), while data sharing policy was recommended by 32 (29.4%) journals. Statistical analyses suggest that these policies were more frequently mentioned by SCIE‐indexed journals, higher‐impact journals, and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations. Conclusion Reporting guidelines, OA and data sharing are important tools for enhancing research communication, translation and the reduction of avoidable research waste. However, currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals.

show abstract

“…Second, the 109 journals included in this study were selected based on the SCIE and MEDLINE databases and thus may not be representative of all dental journals. However, by including journals that were indexed in MEDLINE but not SCIE, our sample was already more comprehensive than those in previous studies regarding editorial policies in dentistry (Faggion 2011;Smail-Faugeron et al 2015) and other medical specialties (Knuppel et al 2013;Kunath et al 2012;Meerpohl et al 2010). Third, in our survey regarding instructions to reviewers, we did not contact journals' editorial offices to retrieve any instruction disseminated directly to reviewers.…”

Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

show abstract

Policies of dental journals for reporting and monitoring authorship and contributorship

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Bibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010

Bibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010

Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About