Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.

Revisiones por pares de protocolos presentados a un Comité local de investigación en salud. Tabasco, México, 2009 / Peer review of research projects showed to a health research local Committee. Tabasco, Mexico, 2009

INTRODUCCIÓN: Frecuentemente se encuentran errores en protocolos y reportes de investigación, su estudio permite detectar necesidades de educación continua. OBJETIVO: Identificar los errores en los protocolos presentados al Comité Local de Investigación en Salud del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, en Tabasco, México, durante el año 2009. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Diseño transversal descriptivo. Universo: 62 protocolos presentados en el año 2009. Muestra: no probabilística por conveniencia. Criterios de inclusión: protocolos presentados y dictaminados durante el período de estudio, que cuenten con registros de su revisión por pares. Variables: dictámenes, revisores y errores: de presentación, introducción, método y éticos. Fuente de información: archivos de revisiones por pares con base en la "Guía para la evaluación de protocolos de investigación" del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Procedimientos: sistematización de información de revisiones por pares. Análisis: estadística descriptiva. Software: Epi Info® versión 3.3.2 para entorno Windows™. RESULTADOS: Se dictaminaron 50 protocolos de investigación: 32 autorizados (64%), 10 no autorizados (20%) y 8 con dictamen de modificarlo y volverlo a presentar (16%). Errores más frecuentes: sintaxis y ortografía incorrectas, (62%;), carta de consentimiento informado inadecuada, 45%; fundamentación inadecuada del problema, 36%; descripción insuficiente de procedimientos, 36%. CONCLUSIONES: Los errores en las consideraciones éticas y de redacción son los más frecuentes en los protocolos de investigación presentados al Comité Local de Investigación en Salud del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social en Tabasco. Se requiere capacitar en estos aspectos al personal de salud de la institución que realiza o asesora trabajos de investigación

INTRODUCTION: Frequently they found fails in research projects and reports, and your study show continuing education needs. OBJECTIVE: to identify errors in projects presented to Health Research Local Committee of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social from Tabasco, Mexico, during 2009. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional and descriptive design. Universe: 62 projects presented in 2009. Sample: no randomized for convenience. Inclusion criteria: projects presented and ruled in 2009 that and counted with peer review files. Variables: verdicts, reviewers, presentation errors, introduction errors, method errors, ethic methods. Information source: peer review files based on "Research projects evaluation guide" of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Procedures: systematization of peer review information. Analysis: descriptive statistic. Software: Epi Info© version 3.3.2 for Windows™ environment. RESULTS: 50 research projects were ruled: 32 authorized (64%), 10 non-authorized (20%), 8 with modification and sending back to peer-review (16%). As the most frecuent errors, were found: incorrect syntax and spelling 62%, inadequate informed consent letter 45%, lack of appropriate foundation 36%, insufficient description of procedures 36%. Conclusions: The most frequents errors in the research projects presented to the Health Research Local Committee of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social were about the ethical considerations and the redaction. For this reason to qualify in these aspects to health personnel of institution that carry out and advice on research works is required

The ethical issues of research involving human beings contained in the editorial guidelines of Brazilian medical journals / Os aspectos éticos das pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos contidos nas diretrizes editoriais das revistas médicas brasileiras

The present study aimed to analyze the ethical aspects contained in the sections Instructions to authors of Brazilian medical journals which were highly qualified on the assessment of the Qualis program of Conselho Técnico Científico da Educação Superior (CTC-ES) (Medicine I area - reference year 2007). Moreover, we searched in the journals that present information about the ethical issues involved in research with humans, if these journals inform the authors about how they should confirm to the editors the compliance with ethical issues of their studies. The editorial guidelines of 34 journals (17.6%, B2 score; 35.3% B3 score; 47.1% B4 score) were analyzed. It was observed that only 7 (20.6%) journals do no mention some ethical questions related to research involving human subjects and that 25 (73.5%) journals indicate the need for approval of research by Ethics Committee of the institution where the study was conducted. However, less than half (44.1%) of the journals clearly indicate in their Instructions to authors that information about the ethical aspects of research involving human subjects should be cited in the text of the manuscript submitted. Thus, further improvement is still necessary regarding the approach of ethical issues in the editorial guidelines of the Brazilian medical journals analyzed. Researches like this seek to contribute with the discussion about the awareness of editors, so that they mention in the instructions of their journals the principles, rules and ethical standards that must be considered in the research involving human beings.

O presente estudo teve por objetivo analisar os aspectos éticos contidos na seção Instruções aos autores dos periódicos médicos brasileiros mais bem conceituados na avaliação do Qualis de Periódicos do Conselho Técnico Científico da Educação Superior (CTC-ES) (Área Medicina I ano base 2007). Além disso, buscou investigar nos periódicos que disponibilizam alguma informação sobre as questões éticas envolvidas na experimentação em seres humanos, se os mesmos informam aos autores a maneira com que eles devem confirmar aos editores o cumprimento das questões éticas dos seus estudos. As diretrizes editoriais de 34 periódicos (17,6%, conceito B2; 35,3% conceito B3; 47,1% conceito B4) foram analisadas. Foi observado que apenas 7 (20,6%) dos periódicos analisados não mencionaram alguma questão ética relacionada à pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos e que 25 (73,5%) deles indicam a necessidade de aprovação da pesquisa pelo Comitê de Ética da instituição onde o estudo foi conduzido. Contudo, menos da metade (44,1%) dos periódicos analisados deixaram claro em suas Instruções aos Autores que informações sobre os aspetos éticos da pesquisa com seres humanos devem ser citados no corpo do manuscrito. Assim, concluiu-se que ainda são necessárias maiores melhorias quanto à abordagem das questões éticas nas diretrizes editoriais dos periódicos médicos brasileiros analisados. Pesquisas como esta visam a contribuir com a discussão sobre a conscientização dos editores para que façam constar nas instruções dos seus periódicos os princípios, normas e padrões éticos que devem ser obedecidos na pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos.