Guidelines For Authors Research Articles

Author Guidelines

Author Guidelines

Guidelines for authors publishing in Cell Biology

Authors need some information to provide that are dependent on the type of article format they want to publish in Cell Biology. Herein, guidelines are given to authors for next submissions to Cell Biology for publication following the editorial requirements.

Author guidelines for publishing in Cell Reviews (Marseille, France)

Publishing articles in Cell Reviews requires some essential information to provide in a given article format of the journal. Here are highlighted the guidelines for authors for submitting articles that suite the editorial requirements of Cell Reviews and Rviews Press journals as by this publication date.

Guidelines for authors publishing in Cell Biology

Guidelines for authors publishing in Cell Biology

Author guidelines for publishing in Cell Reviews

Author guidelines for publishing in Cell Reviews

Editorial: IJHG author guidelines and policies

Editorial: IJHG author guidelines and policies

Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed

ObjectivesThe aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s). Study Design and SettingAt the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process. ResultsWe developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources. ConclusionWe suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.

Clarifying middle authorship contributions to reduce abuses in science publishing and assessment of top-ranked SJR biochemistry and pharmacology journals' authorship criteria.

So-called "middle authors," being neither the first, last, nor corresponding author of an academic paper, have made increasing relative contributions to academic scholarship over recent decades. No work has specifically and explicitly addressed the roles, rights, and responsibilities of middle authors, an authorship position which we believe is particularly vulnerable to abuse via growing phenomena such as paper mills. Responsible middle authorship requires transparent declarations of intellectual and other scientific contributions that journals can and should require of co-authors and established guidelines and criteria to achieve this already exist (ICMJE/CRediT). Although publishers, editors, and authors need to collectively uphold a situation of shared responsibility for appropriate co-authorship, current models have failed science since verification of authorship is impossible, except through blind trust in authors' statements. During the retraction of a paper, while the opinion of individual co-authors might be noted in a retraction notice, the retraction itself practically erases the relevance of co-author contributions and position/status (first, leading, senior, last, co-corresponding, etc.). Paper mills may have successfully proliferated because individual authors' roles and responsibilities are not tangibly verifiable and are thus indiscernible. We draw on a historical example of manipulated research to argue that authors and editors should publish publicly available, traceable contributions to the intellectual content of an article-both classical authorship or technical contributions-to maximize both visibility of individual contributions and accountability. To make our article practically more relevant to this journal's readership, we reviewed the top 50 Q1 journals in the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology, as ranked by the SJR, to appreciate which journals adopted the ICMJE or CRediT schools of authorship contribution, finding significant variation in adhesion to ICMJE guidelines nor the CRediT criteria and wording of author guidelines.

Guidelines for Authors

Guidelines for Authors

Anything goes for participant, patient and public involvement in youth mental health research

AbstractBackgroundParticipant and Public Involvement in youth mental health research aims at making research more responsive to the needs of youth struggling with mental health issues, their parents, and mental health professionals and other stakeholders. Do characteristics of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in youth mental health research align with transparency and replication prerequisites as necessary conditions for translation? Relatedly, the question is addressed whether co‐authorship should be assigned to youth involved in the study.MethodsHere we address these questions re‐visiting 50 PPI studies included in two recent systematic reviews of PPI on characteristics that are pertinent to questions about transparency, replicability, translatability, and co‐authorship in PPI research.ResultsAlmost two‐third of the studies on youth mental health incorporating PPI translate their results to policy or practice, mostly as recommendations but sometimes also by dissemination of (online) interventions. At the same time the authors of a substantial majority of the studies (70%) also suggest the need for further work on their results, for example, in randomized controlled trials to validate the outcome of their exploratory inquiry. Only a quarter of the studies using PPI met the conditions for replicability, thus a majority of the PPI studies suggest premature translation of results. Authorship to involved participants was assigned in 24% of the studies.Conclusions“Anything goes” for PPI in an exploratory stage to generate fruitful hypotheses. Translation of the findings of PPI studies however require a firm evidence base of replicated results. Radical merging of research and action in participatory action research seems incompatible with replicable and therefore translatable inquiry. Assigning co‐authorship to PPI representatives is often at odds with current guidelines for authorship. More evidence from randomized trials on the translational impact of PPI is needed before grant foundations should require PPI in grant proposals.

ChecKAP: A Checklist for Reporting a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) Study.

The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) model is a foundational tool in public health research. KAP surveys play a vital role in this process by gauging a population's current level of knowledge about a specific health issue. Rigorous evaluation is essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of KAP studies. Therefore, in this study, a comprehensive checklist for reporting Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) Studies was developed. This study was conducted using a systematic six-step roadmap. A comprehensive review of available relevant quality assessment tools led to the development of specific new items. An expert panel reviewed the initial draft, and after corrections were made, the second draft was finalized and subjected to psychometric analysis by experts. The development of ChecKAP (Checklist for Reporting Items for Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice) represents a significant contribution to KAP studies. The final tool consists of 46 items across 8 fields: title (1 item), abstract (6 items), keywords (1 item), introduction (6 items), method (11 items), findings (7 items), discussion (15 items), and conclusion (1 item). ChecKAP assesses the inherent complexity of KAP research methods and ensures consistent reporting. It fills an important gap in the KAP research literature and serves a dual purpose. First, it acts as a quality assessment tool for reviewers, enabling them to evaluate the methodological rigor and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Second, it serves as a guideline for authors, promoting a more systematic and transparent approach to reporting.

Title, abstract and keywords: a practical guide to maximize the visibility and impact of academic papers.

In a growing digital landscape, enhancing the discoverability and resonance of scientific articles is essential. Here, we offer 10 recommendations to amplify the discoverability of studies in search engines and databases. Particularly, we argue that the strategic use and placement of key terms in the title, abstract and keyword sections can boost indexing and appeal. By surveying 230 journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, we found that current author guidelines may unintentionally limit article findability. Our survey of 5323 studies revealed that authors frequently exhaust abstract word limits-particularly those capped under 250 words. This suggests that current guidelines may be overly restrictive and not optimized to increase the dissemination and discoverability of digital publications. Additionally, 92% of studies used redundant keywords in the title or abstract, undermining optimal indexing in databases. We encourage adopting structured abstracts to maximize the incorporation of key terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. In addition, we encourage the relaxation of abstract and keyword limitations in journals with strict guidelines, and the inclusion of multilingual abstracts to broaden global accessibility. These recommendations to editors are designed to improve article engagement and facilitate evidence synthesis, thereby aligning scientific publishing with the modern needs of academic research.

Expression of Concern: Garlic (Allium sativum) and mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) powder: Investigation of performance, immune organs and humoural and cellular immune response in broilers.

H. Noruzi and F. Aziz-Aliabadi, "Garlic (Allium Sativum) and Mushroom (Agaricus Bisporus) Powder: Investigation of Performance, Immune Organs and Humoural and Cellular Immune Response in Broilers," Veterinary Medicine and Science 10, no. 2 (2024): e31367, https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1367. This Expression of Concern is for the above article, published online on 15 February 2024 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been published by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Gayle Hallowell and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Expression of Concern has been agreed due to concerns raised by a third party regarding the availability of an ethical approval. The authors have received Higher Degree by Research (HDR) committee approval and a bioethical course certificate. The authors and their institute confirmed that this was equivalent to an ethical approval from the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad at the time when the research was conducted but could not provide the HDR committee approval documentation. Since this does not fully comply with the ethics policy of the journal, as noted on the journal's author guidelines page, the journal has decided to issue an Expression of Concern to inform and alert the readers.

Industry relationships with interventional radiologists: Who are the high payment physicians?

PurposeTo identify characteristics of interventional radiologists receiving more than $100,000 in general industry payments over a 5-year period (2017-2021). MethodsThe Open Payments database was queried to identify interventional radiologists who received more than $100,000 in consulting fees, speaker fees, education, and/or gifts over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The national provider identifier registry, Scopus, and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, such as demographics, research profile, leadership positions, and social media presence. ResultsFrom 2017-2021, 125 interventional radiologists received cumulative payments greater than $100,000 in consulting fees, speaker fees, education, and gifts. For this subset of physicians, the median (IQR) cumulative payment value was $214,380 ($141,812 - $383,740), and the total payment value was $40 million. While the highest-paid subset of physicians represented only 3 % (125/4272) of all US interventional radiologists paid by industry, the total payment value represented 66 % ($40,039,610.08/$60,859,025) of the total payment value among all interventional radiologists. 47 % (59/125) had faculty appointments and 30 % (37/125) had hospital leadership positions. 22 % (27/125) were clinical practice guideline authors, while 18 % (23/125) served on journal editorial boards and 12 % (15/125) had positions in specialty association leadership. Castle Connolly recognized 26 % (32/125) as top doctors. Among the 96 % (120/125) with published research in the past 5 years, the median (IQR) H-index was 17 (7-31). 38 % (48/125) had a presence on Twitter with a median (IQR) Kardashian index of 2.03 (0.48-6.16). ConclusionA small subset of interventional radiologists receive large payments from drug and medical device companies. These physicians are leaders in their field with influence in hospitals, research, associations, and social media. Further work is needed to understand how the concentration of these payments affects decisions in clinical practice and policy.

Guidelines for Authors

Guidelines for Authors

От редактора: Следуя инструкциям журнала или как избежать отказа на этапе предварительного рассмотрения

When a new manuscript is submitted, the editorial team of Education and Self Development carries out a preliminary assessment and checks it for compliance with the journal guidelines. In case of successful initial check, the manuscript is sent out for peer review. Unfortunately, the percentage of papers that are rejected by editors prior to review is quite high. In this editorial I want to discuss why it happens and how to avoid a desk reject. One of the key reasons for rejecting a paper is inconsistency with the Journal’s scope. When such cases occur, we realise that an author has not done the groundwork and has not read the journal aims. Before submitting a manuscript, authors must visit a journal website, get familiar with its mission, identify the target audience, learn about the submission process, and even read through some published works. It is highly recommended to select a target journal reasonably in advance, and this choice should be solely based on the scope of a journal. The second ground for rejection is when a manuscript does not follow journal guidelines. As with the scope, submission guidelines can be found on the journal website. I should point out that instructions for authors who are interested in submitting their works to Education and Self Development are available on our website in the tab ‘Submit an article’ (Author guidelines).

Editorial: Following author guidelines or how to avoid desk rejection

При поступлении новой статьи редакция журнала «Образование и саморазвитие» рассматривает материал на соответствие определенным критериям. В случае успешного прохождения первого этапа рукопись направляется на рецензирование. К сожалению, процент статей, которые отсеиваются редакторской командой, довольно высокий. Из-за чего это происходит и как избежать отказа на предварительном этапе рассмотрим в данной редакторской статье. Одна из очевидных причин, по которой статьи не допускаются до рецензирования – это несоответствие научной сфере журнала. Когда редакция сталкивается с подобными случаями, это свидетельствует о том, что автор не провел подготовительную работу и не ознакомился с целями и задачами журнала. Перед подачей материала обязательно изучите сайт научного издания, ознакомьтесь с миссией журнала, узнайте его целевую аудиторию, посмотрите опубликованные статьи. Работу по подбору журнала рекомендуем начинать заблаговременно, и при выборе важно ориентироваться исключительно на тематику. Второе основание для отказа – несоответствие требованиям журнала к структуре и содержанию статьи. Как и с тематическим профилем, файл с требованиями можно найти на сайте журнала. Напоминаю, что рекомендации для авторов по подготовке и оформлению статей в журнал «Образование и саморазвитие» размещены на сайте во вкладке «Подать статью» (Информация для авторов).

Artificial Intelligence and Writing Assisted by Algorithms: What Do Scientific Associations and Their Journals Signal?

The use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in the writing of scientific texts, has been much problematized. This article analyzes, in research of an exploratory and documentary nature (Lüdke; André, 1988), whether there are positions taken by Brazilian scientific associations and their respective journals on the production of scientific communications mediated by the use of artificial Intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT and like, unveiling the emerging themes associated with the practices of appropriation of this technology in textual production. The research was carried out between May and June 2023, on the websites of 33 Brazilian scientific associations from different areas of knowledge, and 50 journals. No expressly contrary positions were found in relation to the uses of generative AI for textual production, by the 33 (thirty-three) associations researched. Only 3 (three) of the 50 (fifty) journals, until June 2023, had explicit policies or guidelines for authors on the use of artificial intelligence in the writing of scientific communication. From the analytical induction, when exploring the collected data, we conclude that: a) topics such as authorship, plagiarism and ethics are the most correlated with the appropriation of AI for scientific communication; b) the absence of positions from a significant number of journals, on the use of generative AI in the textual production of scientific communication is still safeguarded by the principles of authorship and ethics, with no general mention of the technologies that generate writing; c) concerns about the use of AI in scientific communication tend to spread, since its effects are not restricted to a specific type of knowledge. It is necessary for scientific associations and journals to explain their positions on the use, or not, of AI in scientific communication.

Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry payments to authors of clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan

ObjectiveClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility....

Guidelines for Authors

Guidelines for Authors