ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2013
Quality of publication ethics in the instructions to the authors of Iranian journals of medical sciences.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
- The Frequency of Reporting Ethical Issues in Human Subject Articles Published in Iranian Medical Journals: 2009-2013.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Authorship policies of scientific journals.Journal of medical ethics · 2016Article
- Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals.Croatian medical journal · 2014Article
- A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2014Article
- Quality of publication ethics in instructions to authors.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing a perfect instruction to authors can prevent most potential publication ethics errors. This study was conducted to determine the quality of ethical considerations in the instructions to the authors of Iranian research scientific journals of medical sciences (accredited by the Commission for Accreditation and Improvement of Iranian Medical Journals) in October 2011. Checklist items (n=15) were extracted from the national manual of ethics in medical research publications, and the validity of the manual of ethics was assessed. All the accredited Iranian journals of medical sciences (n=198) were entered into the study. The instructions to the authors of 160 accredited Iranian journals were available online and were reviewed. The ANOVA and Kendall Correlation coefficient were performed to analyze the results. A total of 76 (47.5%) of the 160 journals were in English and 84 (52.5%) were in Farsi. The most frequently mentioned items related to publication ethics comprised "commitment not to send manuscripts to other journals and re-publish manuscripts" (85%, 83.8%), "aim and scope" of the journal (81.9%), "principles of medical ethics in the use of human samples" (74.4%), and "review process" (74.4%). On the other hand, the items of "principles of advertising" (1.2%), "authorship criteria" (15%), and "integrity in publication of clinical trial results" (30.6%) were the least frequently mentioned ones. Based on the study findings, the quality of publication ethics, as instructed to the authors, can improve the quality of the journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23645959PMC3642946What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.