ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Behind the scenes: exploring neurological journal editors' work habits, decisions, and potential sources of conflict of interest.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEditors of scientific journals play a key role in the health-related research process. Our study aims to characterize the demographics, work habits, decision-making processes, and ethical challenges faced by editors of neurological journals and to evaluate associations between editor or journal characteristics and editorial decisions, as well as sources of conflict of interest.
methodsCross-sectional study involving editors from neurological journals that fell above the 50th percentile in the Scimago rankings. Editors were invited to complete a 16-item anonymous online survey. Data on demographics, editorial processes, decision-making, and ethical issues were collected and analysed.
results64 editors completed the survey (35.94% were aged 55-65 years, 68.75% had over 7 years of experience); journals' impact factors(IF) ranged from 1 to 10 (mean 3.412 ± 0.260). When reviewers were blinded to authors, editors relied more on reviewers' decisions (p = < 0.007). Editors with more years of experience relied less on reviewers' decisions (p = 0.009). Higher IF journals were associated with more frequent conflicts of interest between authors (p = 0.019) and reviewers (p = 0.033). Younger editors faced more ethical dilemmas related to scientific conduct and plagiarism (p = 0.008 and p = 0.016). Younger editors and those working for journals with higher IF were more likely to face ethical dilemmas related to editorial decisions (p = 0.016 and p = 0.042). DISCUSSION: The study highlights relevant aspects of the editorial process in neurological journals, emphasizing the influence of blinding procedures and the inconsistent handling of decision-making and ethical challenges. Addressing these issues through collaboration and standardized guidelines can promote the integrity of the process, ensuring high-quality and trustworthy scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666199What 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.