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.

Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's manuscript resubmission deadlines: creating accountability structures for our authors.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) has made the decision to change our "revise-at-will" policy to instead adopt firmer deadlines for manuscript resubmissions. Beginning with this issue, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revise and resubmit" decision must be resubmitted within two months of the editorial decision. Likewise, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revisions required" decision must be resubmitted within one month of the editorial decision. This editorial discusses JMLA's experience using a "revise-at-will" policy and outlines some anticipated benefits of the new resubmission deadlines.

Research integrity in Instructions for Authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE Recommendations: A descriptive literature study.

BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure. RESULTS: We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

Editorial Commentary: Health Care Policies Must Ensure Equitable Access for All Patients.

It is critical to identify disparities in health care, including orthopaedic pathology, to ensure equitable care across all populations. Recent research shows that White, socially nondeprived, male patients with private insurance are more likely to undergo surgical procedures for rotator cuff disease after a minimum of 6 months of nonoperative management, and race and low income are associated with delays in access to health care and worse outcomes. Moreover, many practitioners and researchers do not record or report important socioeconomic factors. Health care policies must ensure equitable access for all patients, and physicians and other providers must proactively identify patients at risk in order to optimize care.

As a reviewer, how do I decide between recommending rejection of a paper rather than a major revision?

An associate editor of the journal has experienced an increase in the number of received reviews where the comments to either the authors or to the editor do not align with the reviewer's recommendation to accept, revise or reject. In particular, some recommendations for outright rejection of a submission have been accompanied by criticisms that clearly could have been solved by revision of the manuscript. The purpose of this letter is to provide some guidance to reviewers on the specific issue of deciding between a recommendation to revise versus reject.

Ethical requirements of instructions for authors of complementary and alternative medicine journals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased recently, raising ethical concerns about the moral status of CAM. Medical academic journals are responsible for conducting ethical review (ER) of manuscripts to protect the interests of human subjects and to make ethical results available before deciding to publish. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the ER in CAM journals. This study is aim to evaluate the current status of ethical requirements and compliance in CAM journals. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We reviewed instructions for authors (IFAs) of CAM journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (2021) ( https://jcr.clarivate.com ) for general information and requirements for ER. We also browsed the manuscripts regarding randomized controlled trials published by CAM journals in Q1 and Q2 section from January to June, 2023, to check the actual situation of ethical requirement. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 27 journals and 68 manuscripts were ultimately included. 92.6% (25/27) IFAs included keywords of ER, indicating the presence of ethical considerations. However, no specific ER was required for CAM (n = 0). We categorized journals by Geographic origin, JCR section, Year of electronic JCR, Types of studies, % of OA Gold to explore the factors that could influence CAM journals to have certain ethical review policies. The results showed there was no statistical significance in certain ethical review policy in any classification of journals (p > 0.05). All RCT manuscripts included in the study generally met the requirements of the published journals for ethical review. CONCLUSIONS: All IFAs discussed ER, but the content was scattered, unfocused, and there were no specific ER requirements regarding CAM. Although the manuscripts basically met the requirements of the journal, it was not possible to get closer to the process of ER in the manuscript. To ensure full implementation of these policies in the future, CAM journals should require authors to provide more details, or to form a list of items necessary for CAM ethical review.

Statistical reviews in journals of the World Association of Medical Editors.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, there has been a decline in the quality of statistical reporting in biomedical scientific journals. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey study was to find out the opinions of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) members on statistical reviews conducted in their journals, and to summarize the related recommendations that should be implemented in this area. METHODS: A survey containing 25 questions on a range of aspects related to statistical peer review was distributed to WAME members and editorial staff of the journals they are affiliated with. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 141 individuals, the largest proportion of whom were editors­in­chief (36.9%). According to 40% of the respondents, only 31%-50% of the manuscripts accepted for publication are statistically correct. The higher the respondents' assessment of their own statistical knowledge, the lower they believed this percentage to be (P = 0.02). The frequency of statistical peer review was estimated by most respondents at only 1%-10% of the submitted manuscripts. The main reasons for this included difficulty in finding reviewers with the right skills and a lack of funding in this area. Among the respondents working for journals without a statistical editor on the editorial board, 49% believed that statistical reviews enhance the quality of published manuscripts, whereas among those confirming a presence of a statistical editor, this percentage was as high as 84% (P <0.001). Only 5% of the respondents stated that their journal uses the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, members of editorial boards face significant problems related conducting statistical reviews for their journals. For this reason, it is imperative to start implementing statistical guidelines for biomedical journals.

Journal requirement for data sharing statements in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting and represent a step toward data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. We aimed to assess the requirement for data sharing statements of individual participant data by biomedical journals and explore associations between journal characteristics and journal requirements for data sharing statements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements. RESULTS: Of the 3229 biomedical journals included in the analysis, 2345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43-4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78-3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were open access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81. CONCLUSION: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of the biomedical journals that published clinical trials did not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.