SynthesisMedEdPublish (2016)2020
Publishing ethics in medical education: guidance for authors and reviewers in a changing world.
Synthesis in MedEdPublish (2016), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Authorship in medical education.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2024Article
- The changing face ofMedEdPublish (2016) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Medical education publishing is growing rapidly, with both increasing demand for publication space and increasing space availability. The increasing speed of publication, variable degrees of manuscript checking and increasing accessibility pose some challenges to compliance with ethical guidelines for academic publication. In this paper we review the literature and the websites of journals that publish medical education content and present a contemporary view on issues that should be considered by authors, reviewers, editors and readers of medical education publications. Based on this analysis, we present guidance on how to meet desired ethical standards when writing particular categories of manuscripts. Relying on self-judgement of the ethical status by authors may no longer be acceptable. The need to meet ethical guidelines in publishing must be balanced with the desire for freedom of speech and avoidance of editorial bias. Our intention is to provoke discussion and learning within the medical education community of practice.
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.