Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Publication patterns of graduates from a DNP program with submission of a manuscript as a degree requirement.

BACKGROUND: Nurses who earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree are expected to make essential contributions to the scholarship of practice and the improvement of health care outcomes. The DNP program at Duke University School of Nursing requires that students demonstrate scholarship competence by writing a manuscript based on their DNP project and submitting it for publication. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to share an evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: The authors used a bibliometric study design. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that manuscripts authored by students based on the DNP projects they conduct while earning their DNP degree can be published and are cited by other scholars. Additionally, the majority of these authors continue to publish scholarly work in the nursing and broader health-focused literature after they graduate. CONCLUSION: Nurses who developed and submit manuscripts for publication based on their DNP project contribute to the literature and evidence base for practice.

Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

The OHStat guidelines for reporting observational studies and clinical trials in oral health research: manuscript checklist.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología.

INTRODUCTION: The sharing of research findings through communications at congresses and publications is essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The aim was to determine the percentage of communications presented the biennial meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo, Spanish Society of Neonatology) eventually published as full-text articles in indexed peer-reviewed journals and their bibliometric characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts from the oral communications (OCs) in the 2017, 2019 and 2021 SENeo congresses. Then we searched for the authors in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. We collected data on the authors, type of OC and bibliometric characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 525 OCs, and we found a publication rate of 40.38% corresponding to 212 publications, 78.8% of them in international journals. The most frequent journal of publication was Anales de Pediatría. The median and interquartile range values for the impact factor, quartile and number of citations were 2.86 (1.96-3.98), 2 (1-3) and 3 (0-7), respectively, with a remarkable increase in the impact factor for the most recent congresses. The median time elapsed to publication was 10 months (IQR, 1-23). The proportion published was higher for multicentre studies and those with a respiratory topic. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of publication for OCs submitted to SENeo congresses was similar to the frequency of publication for other paediatric congresses, with an impact factor that was above the mean of the congresses under study. The proportion of publication was higher for studies with a multicentre design or a respiratory topic.