PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Editorial Policies”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Editorial policy.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Editorial Policies↗
PubMed1987

Editorial policy and the assessment of quality among medical journals.

Many factors are weighed in judging the quality of a journal. Editorial policies in the instructions to authors section offer an important, though often neglected, source of information. In addition to directions on formatting and style, this section often includes financial disclosures and policies on coverage, peer review, confidentiality, human experimentation and duplicate submissions. This study analyzes the contents of instructions sections from several categories of medical journals to determine their usefulness in making collection development decisions. Included are journals currently considered the most prestigious, indexed in Index Medicus and Abridged Index Medicus, and not indexed in Index Medicus or subscribed to by a typical large academic health sciences library. It was found that in a statistically significant number of journals, the instructions to authors section is more likely to be included and substantive in highly regarded journals than in less prestigious journals. It is concluded that the amount of information in the instructions section is related to the quality of the journal and that these sections are a useful collection development tool.

Libraries, Medical↗
PubMed1995

Editorial policy of Magnesium Research: general considerations on the quality criteria for biomedical papers and some complementary guidelines for the contributors of Magnesium Research. Society for the Development on Magnesium Research.

The quality criteria of biomedical journals--and of 'Magnesium Research' as such--are being given a new insight. This has practical implications for the contributors and the editors. General considerations on the patterns of evaluation of scientific papers highlight five types of errors, that may be incurred in submitted manuscripts. 1. The information conveyed may remain ambiguous: for example, lack of discrimination between acute and chronic patterns, or confusion between the clinical and toxicological consequences of pharmacological and physiological studies: for example it is a real scientific fraud to identify the absent toxic effects of physiological magnesium supplementation with those of high pharmacological magnesium doses ... which in fact may induce toxicity. There should be no confusion between in vitro and in vivo data, with a good understanding of the systemic neuroendocrine metabolic and renal regulations and of the multiple local targets concerned. It is always important to discriminate between the two types of deficit: deficiency due to insufficient intake which merely requires oral physiological supplements and depletion related to a dysregulation which requires more or less specific correction of its causal dysregulation. 2. Insufficient information retrieval, frequently with consultation of one data-base only. Because of indexing omissions and word usage idiosyncrasies, no literature search can retrieve all papers. Monographs and books of proceedings are rarely mentioned in databases and therefore escape consultation. It is obvious, besides, that some of the quoted references have sometimes not been read, but only the title (and in the best cases also the abstract), occasionally with the remaining misprints. A good specific and general knowledge of the background of the study is necessary. 3. Basic methodological errors. Coexistence does not mean causality. Analogous patterns do not demonstrate an identical aetiopathogenesis. The complexity of biology must not be disregarded just because the present trend focuses on one aspect of knowledge at the expense of many others. 4. Thought processes must be unbiased. Citation of supportive papers to the prejudice of unsupportive papers constitutes a real ethical fraud. It seems also very important to submit for publication papers with negative results as well as ones with positive results. In studies on pharmacological indications for magnesium, choice of the magnesium salt used ought to be justified and the efficiency must be evaluated vs reference treatment. 5. Observance of the formal regulations is frequently neglected, in the presentation of manuscripts particularly. Some guidelines should therefore be added to the directions to contributors. Before establishing valuable protocols and in order to write up well structured introductions, discussions and conclusions, the authors should have a comprehensive view of their subjects, that is to say an overall knowledge of the previous general and specific publications related to the topic which must be read. Title, conclusions and abstract ought to be taken into account in the discussion. References should be duly consulted or mentioned as 'cited in'. There should be strict observance of the presentation of the manuscripts according to the directions to contributors. Studies resulting in negative results should not be disregarded. Reciprocally, the editorial policy requires that editors and referees ought to be strict as regards the quality criteria. Although editors and peer reviewers are in no position to detect basic fraud they can, however, highlight errors, whether due to simple oversight or to more subtle ethical or scientific pseudo-frauds. Both conclusive and inconcern papers may deserve publication: positive and negative results equally concern public health. To conclude, the editorial board must be ready to reject dubious manuscripts but must at the same time keep their minds open to consider in a positive l

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Do peer guidelines or editorial policies affect the reporting and discussion of race and ethnicity in pediatric research?

OBJECTIVES: Two policy statements published in pediatric journals encouraged researchers not to use race and ethnicity [R/E] to explain cohort differences without collecting and analyzing data that examine the potential underlying social mechanisms. We sought to determine if these statements had any impact on the reporting and discussion of R/E and sociodemographic markers [SM]. METHODS: Articles in three general pediatric journals between July 2002 and June 2003 were reviewed, and were compared with previously collected data from July 1999-June 2000. We recorded whether the articles documented R/E or SM, or both, in the results, and whether they discussed their significance. Researchers were surveyed to determine whether and why they collected R/E data. RESULTS: Race was reported in 156 of 228 articles (68%), but discussed in only one-third (75). Although there is wide interjournal variability, there was little change between the two periods. Seventy-two percent of respondents thought that R/E was or might be relevant to their research, and this influenced their decision to report and discuss R/E. CONCLUSIONS: Most researchers report R/E and believe it is relevant to their research. Despite policies that reject R/E as explanatory variables, most researchers do not report or discuss the underlying social mechanisms that may explain R/E differences.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2006

Editorial policies of the American Psychologist.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the American Psychologist (AP). Since the publication of its first issue in January 1946, AP has served as the flagship journal for the American Psychological Association (APA) and has played an important and unique role for the field of psychology. Because of the quality of the articles published in AP, the journal has evolved into one of the most influential and widely cited publications in psychology. The purpose of this editorial is to outline a revised set of policies for the journal that builds on and expands those developed by previous editors (see, e.g., Fowler, 1993; Goodstein, 1987; Kiesler, 1976; Pallack, 1981). Before outlining these policies, I would like to explore the relative status and influence of AP within the universe of psychological and social science journals.

Editorial Policies↗