Publishing Your Research–II

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (S1) ◽  
pp. S47-S50
Author(s):  
Marvin L. Birnbaum
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Learning Process ◽  
Principal Reason ◽  
Practice Of Medicine

The principal reason to conduct medical research is twofold: 1) to provide an answer to some question that is important to the investigator(s); and 2) to affect the behavior of others involved in the practice of medicine. In order to accomplish the latter of these two objectives, the results of your labors must be published in a reputable medical Journal so that it can impact upon the practice of your peers. To accomplish this, it is necessary to conform to certain rules in the development of the manuscript, and then have the paper evaluated for its relative merits for publication by a panel of your peers. These issues are addressed in this paper.We all tend to be somewhat naive about the need to write in terms that can be understood and appreciated by our peers. Without clarity and understanding, our work has little impact on others. All that will be accomplished is the knowledge that you think you have gained from what you have done. There are several benefits associated with submission of your hard-earned work for review by your peers. Perhaps the most significant is that the process of peer review constitutes a learning process for the reviewers as well as the authors.

scholarly journals Defending dignity

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
HARVEY MAX CHOCHINOV
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Practice Of Medicine

In a recent British Medical Journal editorial, Ruth Macklin pronounced that dignity is “a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content” (Macklin, 2003). The published responses offered a unanimous, firm rebuttal, arguing that dignity is somehow foundational to all we do, or ought to be doing, within the practice of medicine or medical research. Whereas Macklin argued that dignity lacked definitional specificity, the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan were invoked by respondent Jayson Rapoport: “I can't define dignity, but I know it when I see it” (Rapoport, 2003). Whether dignity has no place or a pivotal place within the medical lexicon, what seems clear is that discussions pertaining to dignity leave little room for indifference.

scholarly journals Statistical reporting in the "Clujul-Medical" journal

2015 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-488
Author(s):  
Daniel-Corneliu Leucuța ◽  
Tudor Drugan ◽  
Andrei Achimaș
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Research Needs

Background and aim. Medical research needs statistical analyses to understand the reality of variable phenomena. There are numerous studies showing poor statistical reporting in many journals with different rankings, in different countries. Our aim was to assess the reporting of statistical analyses in original papers published in Clujul Medical journal in the year 2014.Methods. All original articles published in Clujul Medical in the year 2014 were assessed using mainly Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature guidelines.Results. The most important issues found in reporting statistical analyses were reduced reporting of:  assumptions checking, difference between groups or measures of associations, confidence intervals for the primary outcomes, and errors in the statistical test choice or the descriptive statistic choice for several analyses. These results are similar with other studies assessing different journals worldwide.Conclusion. Statistical reporting in Clujul Medical, like in other journals, have to be improved. 

Endorsement of Standard Reporting Guidelines by PubMed Indexed Indian Medical Journals (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhad Mulkalwar ◽  
Purva Gaidhane
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Accurate Evaluation ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Indian Medical ◽  
Quality Of Research

UNSTRUCTURED Reporting guidelines have become very important tools in medical research. These guidelines improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of reporting the crucial aspects of research studies. This aids not only in accurate evaluation of the methodological quality of research and validity of the results, but also improves the quality of evidence synthesized from published data for application in practice.It’s important for the publishers to incorporate these guidelines in their ‘Instructions to Authors’ on the journal website. We documented the extent of endorsement of the five commonly used standard guidelines CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE, PRISMA, STROBE and CARE by fifty PubMed indexed Indian Medical journal

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

scholarly journals Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem

BMJ ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 324 (7348) ◽  
pp. 1271-1273 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Bacchetti
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
The Other

scholarly journals Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record: corrections and best practices at The Lancet group

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley N Cooper ◽  
Jessica E Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Public Record

A transparent corrections process is essential to assist in the maintenance of public confidence in scientific and medical research. In the era of preprints, fast-paced peer review, and early-access publication, errors and oversights from both authors and editors might be more common. The swift and open correction of the public record requires the participation of authors, journal editors, and publishers, and in this Viewpoint we share The Lancet group’s best practices around errors and corrections.

scholarly journals Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adeline Rosenberg ◽  
Slávka Baróniková ◽  
Linda Feighery ◽  
William Gattrell ◽  
Rikke Egelund Olsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Pharmaceutical Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Plain Text ◽  
Patient Advocates ◽  
Medical Publishing

Plain language summaries of peer-reviewed publications are intended for everyone engaging with medical research, such as patients, patient advocates, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. These summaries encourage discussions around medical research and aid fully informed and shared decision-making. The broad range of stakeholders involved in pharmaceutical research now puts the pharmaceutical industry in a unique position to make the medical publishing model more open. We believe that the next step of openness is to create a more accessible and inclusive environment through the routine development of plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications.There are many formats of plain language summaries, but plain text is the most discoverable through indexing in directories such as PubMed. Standardizing the minimum steps for the development and sharing of index-friendly plain language summaries can help promote the quality and credibility of these lay communications. The aim of a minimum standard is to build a universal foundation that encourages the accessibility, discoverability, and inclusivity of plain language summaries. This standard can then serve as a basis for summaries written for a more specific target audience or that include graphically and digitally enhanced formats that increase understanding and engagement, which we strongly encourage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document