ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2014
[Not Available].
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHonorary and ghost authorship, as well as competing interests, are well documented concerns related to the publication of scientific articles. Guidelines for writing and publishing scientific manuscripts are available, including those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
objectivesThe primary objective of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to identify, in the instructions for authors of pharmacy practice journals, guidance on authorship and competing interests. The secondary objective was to suggest suitable corrective measures for more transparent authorship.
methodsThe first step of the project was to identify journals in the area of pharmacy practice. The instructions for authors of each journal were then reviewed to determine recommendations for avoiding problems related to authorship and competing interests. Finally, the members of the research team formulated potential corrective measures for researchers.
resultsOf 232 pharmacy journals identified, 33 were deemed to focus on pharmacy practice. A total of 24 (73%) of these journals mentioned that they followed ICMJE policies, 14 (42%) asked authors to complete a competing interests disclosure form at the time of submission, 17 (52%) had a formal definition of authorship, and 5 (15%) asked for details of each author's contribution. A list of 40 criteria was developed to define authorship status.
conclusionFewer than half of the journals asked authors to provide a competing interests disclosure form upon submission of an article, and only half had a formal definition of authorship. The scientific publication of papers relevant to pharmacy practice is not free from issues related to publication transparency. Publishing articles online and using a checklist to detail each author's contribution may help to limit the associated risks. [Publisher's translation].
Indexed as
Identifiers
24970938PMC4071080What 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.