ArticlePloS one2019
Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Compliance with research participant protection guidelines by Nigerian medical journals.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Article
- Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Current Status and Trends in Research on Caries Diagnosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Article
- Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- Mind the gap: A cross-sectional analysis of large language model guidance in emergency medicine journals.Digital healthArticle
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
In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.