Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal's Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023. RESULTS: Of the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: While many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.

"The Best Home for This Paper": A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts.

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal's prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors' decision making. Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal's impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

Recommendations for articles and reviews in colorectal cancer-related research at the year-end of 2023.

As peer reviewers of the World Journal of Gastroenterology, our weekly routine involves immersing ourselves in the newly published issue, particularly focusing on the realm of colorectal cancer (CRC) research. We diligently sift through various contributions, ranging from comprehensive reviews to original articles and other scholarly works. Through meticulous examination, we discern the most notable papers, delving into each with careful scrutiny to distill their merits and shortcomings. Undoubtedly, this undertaking demands considerable time and effort. Yet, it stands as an indispensable pursuit, affording us a profound comprehension of the latest breakthroughs in CRC research. Moreover, these meticulously curated selections furnish readers with invaluable resources, serving as enduring references for the nuanced exploration of this dynamic field.

Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

ABSTRACT: The "publish and flourish" culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author's contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research's quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author's productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author's productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today's rapidly changing academic landscape.

[Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?] / Las revistas depredadoras: ¿qué son y cómo evitarlas?

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.

Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.

Practical guide to writing cover letters and response letters for scientific journals.

Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios.

CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews.

Fixing errors in the PubMed entry of the abstract of an article.

We chanced upon a number of errors in a PubMed entry (PMID: 24727622) of the abstract of an article published in your journal a decade ago. This prompted us to think how PubMed entries are rectified and whether it may be important to publish an erratum in a forthcoming issue of the journal when the original source on the journal's website has no error.

Data sharing and transparency indicators in published RCTs in Oral Health between 2017 and 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To record the proportion of data sharing reporting in terms of primary data and/or statistical code of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. Transparency indicators such as registration or funding statements were assessed. METHODS: We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2023 in journals of high impact of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting their intent to share or openly shared primary data and we tested for associations with potential predictors. Funding, registration, and statistical code/script sharing practices were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 752 RCTs were included, of which only 119 (15.8%) either openly provided their data or included a statement of intention to share upon request. Only one study openly provided the statistical code underlying the analysis used. RCTs in periodontology more frequently included statements about positive intent to share (57/210;27.1%), followed by Orthodontics (35/157;22.3%). Significant effects of year, dentistry domain and continent of authorship on data sharing practices were identified (p < 0.001 in all cases). There was evidence that registered RCTs had 2.04 times higher odds for intention to share data (95%confidence interval: 1.06, 3.92;p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in oral health RCTs, empirical evidence suggested very low prevalence of positive data sharing practices. Enhancing transparency is pivotal in promoting reproducibility and credibility of research findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this empirical report bring attention to key transparency indicators in randomized controlled trials. These largely impact on the credibility and reproducibility of the evidence base for clinical decision making.