Editorial Management: Clinical Research Papers and Science Research Papers

Abstract

The purpose of this editorial is to address ongoing concerns for research design problems, statistical analysis problems, and research study conclusions made in manuscripts and published articles. Editorial dilemmas are created when editors recognize important research ideas, but the research manuscripts for these ideas reflect poorly argued studies. When such dilemmas occur, journal editors are generally limited to one of the following options: 1) Rejecting a paper that simply is not tenable; 2) encouraging the author(s) to rewrite the paper and resubmit a revised paper; or 3) becoming ghost writers for the author(s) to bring an acceptable level of quality to the paper.Nuijten1 reported evidence to support an argument that statistical reporting errors are distorting scientific literature. Nuijten further reported that publication bias was the most prominent reason given, and provided the following concrete solutions to correct this problem:Allison et al.2 wrote that procedural and analytic mistakes in peer reviewed papers are discoverable; however, they are sometimes impossible to fix. Allison et al. further attempted to address more than 25 procedural and analytic errors. Journal editors, they reported, were sincere in their reviews; however, the manuscripts were generally not well prepared. Allison et al. cited ten editorial problems, including several listed below:Noorden3 addressed the problem of inaccurate use of statistics in published papers and discussed Science as an example of a journal that is taking action to correct such inaccuracies. Noorden reported that Science: 1) retains seven statisticians on a Statistical Board of Reviewing Editors (SBoRE) and 2) strongly recommends all papers reporting potential new biomarkers be evaluated by an independent statistician before submission for review (see http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-editorial-policies).Kass et al.4 recommended simple rules for effectively addressing statistical arguments in science papers. Using a list format with editorial comments, Kass et al. included some of the following rules:In response to the concern for research design problems, statistical analysis problems, and research study conclusions, Journal of Oral Implantology (JOI) has taken the following steps to improve the quality of the manuscripts submitted for review:Journal editors have responsibilities to ensure the accuracy of published scientifically argued papers, to protect the patients who practitioners treat based upon the finding of published scientific papers, and to ensure that published scientific papers have tenable longevity as progressive technology advancements are used to test the scientific merits of journal publications. The position of JOI is that these responsibilities need to be shared more fully with authors of scientific papers vying for publication in journals and not simply the responsibilities of journal editorial boards.