Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals.

Importance: High-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality. Objective: To determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated. Results: In this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]). Conclusion and Relevance: In this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

Guías para la elaboración de manuscritos y unas pinceladas de lectura crítica / Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal

El proceso de investigación biomédica debe seguir unos criterios de calidad en su diseño y elaboración que garanticen que los resultados son creíbles y fiables. Una vez finalizado, llega el momento de escribir un artículo para su publicación. Este debe presentar con suficiente detalle, y de forma clara y transparente, toda la información del trabajo de investigación realizado. De esta forma, los lectores, tras una lectura crítica de lo publicado, podrán juzgar la validez y la relevancia del estudio, y si lo consideran, utilizar los hallazgos. Con el objetivo de mejorar la descripción del proceso de investigación para su publicación, se han desarrollado una serie de guías que, de forma sencilla y estructurada, orientan a los autores a la hora de elaborar un manuscrito. Se presentan en forma de lista, diagrama de flujo, o texto estructurado, y son una ayuda inestimable a la hora de escribir un artículo. Este artículo presenta las guías de elaboración de manuscritos de los diseños más habituales, con sus listas de verificación.(AU)

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.(AU)

Citation Cartels in Medical and Dental Journals.

Citation cartels are groups of researchers who excessively cite each other's work to artificially inflate their citation counts and enhance their reputation. The practice of the citation cartel involves journals agreeing to cite each other's publications to boost their own impact factors. The citation cartel has been criticised for distorting the impact factors of participating journals and undermining the integrity of the scientific process. Citation cartels can take many forms, including reciprocal citing, where researchers agree to cite each other's work in exchange for citations. Citation cartels often involve a small group of researchers who are closely connected and who may be deliberately hiding their activities. To combat citation cartels, journals should use software tools to identify patterns of suspicious citing behaviour and should implement policies that encourage transparency and discourage self-citation. Journals should be held accountable for unethical citation practices, and researchers should carefully evaluate before submission. Key Words: Citation, Citation index, Self-citation, Impact factor.

The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities.

This Viewpoint examines the increase in "mega-journals" (prolific publishers of medical articles) and both the opportunities and threats to scientific research they present.

THE REPORTING QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ABSTRACTS IN LEADING GENERAL DENTAL JOURNALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality. METHODS: We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. RESULTS: A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals.

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process.

BACKGROUND: Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy. METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population. RESULTS: A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies. CONCLUSIONS: Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic.

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.