Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences

Nambiar, Remya; Tilak, Priyanka; Cerejo, Clarinda

doi:10.1087/20140306

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The form listed 19 content areas that were considered important to be included in author guidelines (Table ). These content areas were consistent with a study by Nambiar, Tilak, and Cerejo () on the quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. If the information was present, it was answered as a yes or no question.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Revisions can then be made based on criteria that are missing or weak, resulting in increased clarity in their guidelines. Nambiar et al (2014) assessed the completeness and clarity of author guidelines in biomedical and physical science journals. The primary categories of information to be included were grouped into five areas: aims and scope of the journal, submission and postsubmission processes, formatting instructions, ethical requirements, and authorship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Oermann

Nicoll²,

Chinn

et al. 2018

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals.DesignContent analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website.MethodsUsing Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team.FindingsAuthor guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).ConclusionsAuthor guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision.Clinical RelevanceNurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Oermann

Nicoll²,

Chinn

et al. 2018

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are literature reviews associated with the reasons of retraction [19]- [21]. Over and above, the causes of retraction have been extensively investigated in details by R. G. Steen [1]; M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5]; Susan Feng Lu , Ginger Zhe Jin , Brian Uzzi and Benjamin Jones [10]; R. Nambiar, P. Tilak, and C. Cerejo [12]; and Tianwei He [15] in the publications indexed in WoS. Presently, two science journalists that had spent seven years in writing on retraction have launched a beta version of retraction database.…”

Section: Reasons On Retractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retraction causes harm to authors and a publisher's reputation [12]. On this point, R. Grant Steen [13] states that retracted articles could reflect on medical misinformation [13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science

Al-Hidabi

Teh

2018

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of thirty-six retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on ten common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely random and nonrandom retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed. I. INTRODUCTION Over the years, Steen [1]; Wager and Williams [2]; Ferric C Fang [3]; M. L. Grieneisen and M. Zhang [4]; M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5]; Daniele Fanelli [6]; E Carafoli [7] Andrew B. Rosenkrantz [8]; and Philippe Mongeon [9] have highlighted that retraction has gradually increased [1]-[9]. Retraction is the act of taking out a paper from scientific publication. The retracted paper defined by the Web of Science (WoS) is "An article that has been withdrawn by an author, institution, editor or a publisher because of an error of unsubstantiated data" 2. Ferric C Fang [3] reasons the Retractions could appear, due to misconduct, fraud, a scientific error, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and so on [3]. It could also be because of faked peer reviews [10]. When this happens, editors will send a notice of concern in a bid for initiating a case of investigation in this respect [11]. Although there is a large proportion of retraction review available in the literature, there has not been much work focusing on the reasons for the act of retraction in computer science. In this paper, an attempt has been done to analyse all computer science retracted papers that were indexed in the WoS between Jan 2007 and July 2017. The pertinent works have taken diverse perspectives on different disciplines. During the last decade, up to 31 th of July 2017, the total number of retracted papers reached 36 in seven areas of computer science. Tentative results have shown that at this current stage, the highest number recorded and contributed to computer science disciplinary accounts for a percentage of 1 This is a pre-print of an in-press article to be published in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing by Springer Nature

show abstract

“…Processes of editorial handling and peer review are usually hidden behind curtains of confidentiality or anonymity. But worse, journal policies which should orient authors and readers as to the editorial standards employed by individual journals, including what the general 35 type of peer review system is or whether preprinting manuscripts is allowed, have been suggested to be often unclear (Castelo-Baz et al, 2015;Chawla, 2018;Nambiar et al, 2014). Unclear policies, for example regarding copyright or licensing, could expose researchers to unnecessary risk (Chawla, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Klebel

Reichmann

McDowell

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals 15 for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-20 reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices. 25

show abstract

Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences

Abstract: ABSTRACT. To assess quantitatively the completeness and clarity of author guidelines of international English

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About