These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies.
    Author: Ruy Carneiro NC, Vieira Prado H, Duda Deps Almeida T, Almeida Pordeus I, Borges-Oliveira AC, Castro Martins C.
    Journal: J Am Dent Assoc; 2018 Dec; 149(12):1057-1064. PubMed ID: 30244866.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies. METHODS: The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors (≥ 1.452 and ≤ 1.436, respectively). RESULTS: Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P = .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P = .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P = .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P = .001), registration of clinical trials (P = .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]