International Committee Of Medical Journal Editors Research Articles

A simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study

AbstractAimWe aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.MethodsThe Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.ResultsWe received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by‐lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.ConclusionAuthorship issues were raised in almost one‐third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.

Ethically Determining the Authorship of Health Science Research Publications: A Scoping Review

Authorship is a significant aspect of scientific research publications, serving as a primary means of acknowledging the intellectual contributions of individuals and shaping career trajectories. However, determining authorship ethically and fairly in health science research remains a complex and multifaceted issue. This scoping review aims to explore the existing literature surrounding ethical considerations associated with authorship determination in health science research publications, published between 1989 and 2023. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that ethical authorship practices in health science research are complex and multifaceted. This review emphasized how crucial it is to have precise rules and guidelines for deciding who is the author in academic journals, research institutes, and societies. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published several ethical principles to address the difficulties associated with authorship determination. Still, there are differences and disagreements in how these rules are interpreted and applied, which could present moral enigmas. The review also examines new ethical issues arising from multidisciplinary and collaborative research, such as the responsibilities and funding of industry collaborations, shared authorship, and acknowledging the contributions of other groups. Maintaining the integrity of health science research and encouraging responsible collaboration requires making sure that authorship determination is transparent, equitable, and accountable. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or interpretation of the research findings.

Guest Author and Ghost Author: My Experience as an Editor of a Medical Journal

The author (s) of a scientific article should have contributed to a research article in a meaningful and substantive way. A person who contributes to the research but whose name is excluded from the authors’ list is known as a ghost author. Whereas a guest author doesn’t contribute in a meaningful way to the research and preparation of the manuscript, however, appears on the author's byline. Often, guest authors are influential persons invited by the principal author to get favours later. Gift authorship often involves mutual authorship among the articles of colleagues and vice-versa. The Inclusion of ghost authors, guests, or gift authors is common in the district town’s journal of Noakhali. This article was written to express my ten years of experience regarding the malpractices of authorship of a medical journal as an editor of a medical journal. It is a common phenomenon that after a few days of submitting an article to the editor’s office, the principal author requests to insert another author or to change the order of the author’s position. Members of the editorial board and reviewer of the article insert their names as authors violating the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines. Course on authorship should be almost important to change the trend of our current culture in publishing articles, especially district medical college Journals.

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors–recommended gender equity policy in nursing journals listed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central: a descriptive study

Purpose: The evolving landscape of nursing research emphasizes inclusive representation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established guidelines to ensure the fair representation of various demographic variables, including age, sex, and ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central to the ICMJE’s directives on gender equity, given that journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central typically adhere to the ICMJE’s guidelines.Methods: A descriptive literature review methodology was employed to analyze 160 nursing journals listed in two databases as of July 28, 2023. The website of each journal was searched, and the most recent original article from each was selected. These articles were then evaluated for their alignment with the ICMJE guidelines on gender equity. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize and enumerate the cases.Results: Of the articles reviewed from 160 journals, 115 dealt with human populations. Of these, 93 required a description of gender equity. Within this subset, 83 articles distinguished between the genders of human subjects. Gender-based interpretations were provided in 15 articles, while another 68 did not offer an interpretation of differences by gender. Among the 10 articles that did not delineate gender, only two provided a rationale for this omission.Conclusion: Among recent articles published in the nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, only 16.1% presented clear gender analyses. These findings highlight the need for editors to strengthen their dedication to gender equity within their editorial policies.

Use of person-centered language in obesity-related publications across sports medicine journals: a systematic review of adherence to person-centered language guidelines in sports medicine.

Stigmatizing language or non-person-centered language (non-PCL) has been shown to impact patients negatively, especially in the case of obesity. This has led many associations, such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), to enact guidelines prohibiting theuse of stigmatizing language in medical research. In 2018, the AMA adopted person-centered language (PCL) guidelines, including a specific obesity amendment to which all researchers should adhere. However, little research has been conducted to determine if these guidelines are being followed. Our primary objective was to determine if PCL guidelines specific to obesity have been properly followed in the sports medicine journals that are interacted with most frequently. We searched within PubMed for obesity-related articles between 2019 and 2022 published in the top 10 most-interacted sports medicine journals based on Google Metrics data. A predetermined list of stigmatizing and non-PCL terms/language was searched within each article. A total of 198 articles were sampled, of which 58.6 % were found to be not compliant with PCL guidelines. The most common non-PCL terms were "obese" utilized in 49.5 % of articles, followed by "overweight" as the next most common stigmatizing term at 40.4 %. Stigmatizing labels such as "heavy, heavier, heaviness," "fat" as an adjective, and "morbid" appeared in articles but at a lower rate. Our study shows that there is a severe lack of adherence to PCL guidelines in the most-interacted sports medicine journals. Negative associations between stigmatizing language and individuals with obesity will only persist if a greater effort is not made to change this. All journals, including the most prestigious ones, should adopt and execute PCL guidelines to prevent the spread of demeaning language in the medical community.

Evaluating individual participant data plans for ICMJE compliance: A case study at University of Michigan

Introduction: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires researchers to post individual participant data (IPD) plans for interventional clinical trials with registration in order to be eligible for publication in member journals. Objectives: We aimed to gain insight into how researchers interpret these requirements and the related prompts for information used by ClinicalTrials.gov. To accomplish this, we explored the contents of the IPD plans that University of Michigan (U-M) researchers submitted with trial registrations for the first 27 months that the 2019 requirement was in effect. Methods: Clinical trial registration data for U-M was downloaded using the ClinicalTrials.gov API. 198 interventional trials were analyzed using a data collection form to categorize their characteristics and responses to the ClinicalTrials.gov IPD fields. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the data.Results: More than two-thirds of trial registrations (138, 70%) answered “No,” they would not share IPD, while an additional 21 (10%) left the question blank or answered “Undecided.” Only 39 trial registrations (20%) indicated plans to share IPD. Most trials that indicated they would share IPD provided additional information in the other fields in the form.Conclusions: The vast majority (90%) of trials provided an acceptable answer that complies with the ICMJE policy. Additional education and resources from ICMJE would help researchers provide more useful responses in the IPD Sharing Statement fields. Future research includes tracking changes to the information provided in IPD plans and examining how the plans are assessed by ICMJE journal editors.

Registering transparency: the making of the international clinical trial registry platform by the world health organization (2004–2006)

BackgroundThis paper examines the events and conditions that led to the creation of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in 2006 by the World Health Organization (WHO), and how the WHO addressed the issue of transparency in global pharmaceutical research. Using historical textual analysis, I trace the scientific debates that advocated for the establishment of official clinical trial registries in medical journals, and the sequence of actions following the GSK Paxil scandal in 2004, identifying the major ethical and scientific arguments that led to the involvement of the WHO as a key actor in trial registration in the context of the Big Pharma business model.ResultsThrough the questions “Why register?” and “Why registries?” as a roadmap, I examine the issues of publication bias and selective reporting by the industry, scrutinizing two ways in which the practice of publication bias damaged transparency in industry-sponsored research. The first involved ethical concerns regarding human subject exploitation and concealing of negative results. The second addresses the deterioration of the certainty of evidence due to incomplete access to trials results. By reviewing the series of events that occurred between 2004 and 2006 –between the Paxil scandal and the launch of the ICTRP—, I analyze the actions taken by the different actors involved: (1) the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the creation of the Ottawa Group; (2) the WHO, beginning with the Ministerial Summit on Health Research held in November of 2004, and (3) the responses of the pharmaceutical industry and specifically GSK to the call for transparency and trial registration.ConclusionsThe history of trial registration through the ICTRP as a dataveillance apparatus shows the difficulty of regulating a health enterprise turned into a global business. Moreover, it shows the challenges of globalization and how easier and faster it is to globalize business compared to good practices, raising the question of why it has been so hard to undo these trends. Indeed, the history of the movement for trial registration is not a history of regulation success, or at least not yet.

Follow-up of Artificial Intelligence Development and its Controlled Contribution to the Article: Step to the Authorship?

Dear Editors, I am excited to see a current discussion in this journal [1]. In another editorial article, the questions and answers directed to Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), an artificial intelligence (AI) product, about the authorship process contributed to my idea of conducting a similar study [2]. In addition, addressing the editorial question, the second answer partially satisfied me because it was more innovative. Although the answers of ChatGPT in this article are apparent in the text, their contribution is not included in the footnote, explanation, acknowledgment, or reference; in some studies, it is shown in the footnote [3]; in some, it is included in the acknowledgment section [4]. Such contributions or the nature of the support received should also be evaluated and clearly stated. Which section should be included for AI-enabled content such as ChatGPT? Since accessing the previous accesses is impossible, it may be better to copy them to a visual or open access place instead of giving them a reference in the sources. Although many subjects need to be read further and a detailed examination is required, a brief description of the working mechanism should be made. AI's deep learning is to experiment with a given set of inputs and outputs and make suggestions, and when it encounters a new input, it gives it an appropriate output. As I analyze the book chapters [5] that examine the success of AI programs in the process of inventing, producing art, and doing the work of different professional groups, such as lawyers or doctors in some fields, with appropriate learning algorithms, I think that they may have a promising potential for the future in terms of writing articles. In an environment without prejudice, such as the Turing test, there has been much discussion about the superiority of intelligence only when compared to the machine [5]. In addition, the fact that AI provides a contribution whose authorship cannot be detected by similarity or plagiarism programs, which are different software products, makes this situation difficult to understand. In one of the studies contributing to this editorial correspondence, various AI examples with different functions and more capabilities are given, apart from ChatGPT. In addition, while drawing attention to the trust problem, margin of error, and differences in the level of development between programs, it was emphasized that the suitability of using AI applications for general and simple service operations such as article language editing to reduce financial costs should be treated without prejudice [6]. Another article stated that the support to be received from AI after the article was written would be more reliable, controlled, and risk-free [7]. The article that questioned AI's identity on philosophical and ethical grounds was also remarkable [8]. In a different approach, it was stated that with the increase of pseudoscience authors, scientific and unethical situations may be encountered more frequently and different filtering systems should be used as a precaution. Language translation or text editing contributions were seen as an advantage [9]. In these conditions, where ethical problems are not resolved, it is stated that authorship is not correct and that it should be used to increase the quality of the article by making use of its features that facilitate writing [10]. These articles mention general topics about the potential uses of AI in article writing, possible harms, and cautions are mentioned. The study, which listed suggestions for the practical use of AI in authorship, emphasized the lack of creativity and deep analysis power required for authorship [11]. Another study stated that AI could not be accepted as an author because AI could not take responsibility for its writings, did not comply with research ethics and violated copyright law [12]. As I asked the ChatGPT-3.5 model, another researcher who shared its answer with a similar approach stated that it does not see itself as a researcher and author but that its helpful contributions can be used in the writing and subsequent processes [4]. In another article, which deals with topics such as the areas of use of AI in research, the accuracy of ChatGPT was found to be generally positive [13]. In the article on the opportunities and challenges of AI, which offers comprehensive guidance, the authors expressed their concerns about transparency and explainability of authorship [3]. In a different study, the authorship criteria of The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) were mentioned and it was explained that AI cannot make a significant contribution with data collection and interpretation, cannot approve the final version of the article, and can only collaborate in writing [14]. Another leading study revealed that AI meets only three of the 14 criteria, namely visualization, drafting, and editing, according to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), which is important in terms of authorship criteria. The authors shared the reason why ChatGPT could not meet these criteria and their answers when other criteria were queried with ChatGPT. In parallel with the study, the ChatGPT-3.5 model gave the same answer to my questions and stated that it would not be accepted as an author [15]. General concerns and criticisms focus on the fact that AI cannot take responsibility because of erroneous information and that there are no sanctions in unethical situations. Although there is no such reality now, the debate seems to continue in the coming period, even if AI contributes more than humans and is accepted as an author who is given responsibility and punished. These may depend on where the process will evolve with the contributions of lawyers and software developers and the regulations to be taken according to new developments. Therefore, for now, studies for controlled and comprehensive planning should be followed by authorities from international multidisciplinary fields such as lawyers, professional organizations, publishers, journal editorial boards, and ethics committees. Even if AI is not accepted as an author due to current conditions, the location of AI applications and general criteria, it quickly stepped into the academic studies environment and its authorship has come to the fore and discussions will be held. Best Regards,

Race and ethnicity reporting in endometrial cancer literature

ObjectivesThere is evidence that there are differences in survival outcomes among patients with endometrial cancer of different ethnic groups. We aimed to assess the quantity and quality of race/ethnicity reporting...

The Updated World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative AI in Relation to Scholarly Publications and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (May 2023)

On January 20, 2023, the World Association of Medical Editors published a policy statement on Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts: WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications.1 There were four recommendations, namely: 1. Chatbots cannot be authors; 2. Authors should be transparent when chatbots are used and provide information about how they were used; 3. Authors are responsible for the work performed by a chatbot in their paper (including the accuracy of what is presented, and the absence of plagiarism) and for appropriate attribution of all sources (including for material produced by the chatbot); and 4. Editors need appropriate tools to help them detect content generated or altered by AI and these tools must be available regardless of their ability to pay.1 This statement was spurred in part by some journals beginning to publish papers in which chatbots such as ChatGPT were listed as co-authors.2
 First, only humans can be authors. Chatbots cannot be authors because they cannot meet authorship requirements “as they cannot understand the role of authors or take responsibility for the paper.”1 In particular, they cannot meet the third and fourth ICMJE criteria for authorship, namely “Final approval of the version to be published” and “Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”1,3 Moreover, “a chatbot cannot understand a conflict of interest statement, or have the legal standing to sign (such a) statement,” nor can they “hold copyright.”1 Because authors submitting a manuscript must ensure that all those named as authors meet ICMJE authorship criteria, chatbots clearly should not be included as authors.1
 Second, authors should acknowledge the sources of their materials. When chatbots are used, authors “should declare this fact and provide full technical specifications of the chatbot used (name, version, model, source) and method of application in the paper they are submitting (query structure, syntax),” “consistent with the ICMJE recommendation of acknowledging writing assistance.”1,4
 Third, authors must take public responsibility for their work; “Human authors of articles written with the help of a chatbot are responsible for the contributions made by chatbots, including their accuracy,” and “must be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text produced by the chatbot.”1Consequently, authors must “ensure … appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations,” “seek and cite the sources that support,” as well as oppose (since chatbots can be designed to omit counterviews), the chatbot’s statements.1
 Fourth, to facilitate all this, medical journal editors (who “use manuscript evaluation approaches from the 20th century”) “need appropriate (digital) tools … that will help them evaluate … 21st century … content (generated or altered by AI) efficiently and accurately.”1

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Key points The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper. Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model. Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors. We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author. We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

Nutritional status and factors associated with undernutrition among tuberculosis patients in Sri Lanka

Introduction: Apart from COVID-19, tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death among infectious diseases globally and in Sri Lanka. It is known that the high-risk groups for developing TB are from lower socio-economic groups. Further, there is a close link between TB and nutrition. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and associated factors of undernutrition among TB patients in Sri Lanka Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out using secondary data of a 2020 cohort of TB patients. Results: Out of 4566, the majority were males (65.2%). According to age groups, 55–64-year age group reported the highest proportion of patients (n=1018; 22.3%). According to the classification of body mass index (BMI), 46.3% were underweight. In bivariate analysis, gender (p=0.07), presence of comorbidities (p<0.001), site of TB (p<0.001), use of alcohol (p=0.01), site of TB (p<0.001), treatment category (p<0.001), smoking (p<0.001), alcohol use (p=0.04) and illicit drug use (p<0.001) were associated with patients being underweight. In multivariate analysis, only presence of comorbidities (p<0.001), site of TB (p<0.001), treatment category (p<0.001), smoking (p=0.04) and illicit drug use (p=0.02) were associated with patients being underweight. Conclusions & Recommendations: Creating awareness among clinicians and public health staff is important for them to be vigilant about TB patients with above associated factors. Proper nutritional counselling must be carried out for TB patients. Further, in implementing available nutritional interventions and patient awareness programmes, patients with lower BMI should be given priority although all TB patients are considered in need of nutritious diet.

How Australia prevents male suicides; lessons learnt and implications to Sri Lanka

No abstract available

Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT

Academics have long relied on technological tools to support their research, with these tools growing in sophistication over time. As these tools have advanced, they have allowed researchers to create knowledge more effectively than could have been undertaken by humans alone. However, this paper argues that some new technologies may be moving from simple tools to being collaborators in research, with their abilities contributing not only to identifying previously unidentified relationships in the data, but also synthesising and explaining information to external audiences. Relying on existing literature and questions posed to ChatGPT, we argue that artificial intelligence tools have, or will have, the ability to meet the four conditions specified in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship (the Vancouver Protocol), warranting these technologies to become co-authors on the advancement of academic endeavours; not just background support.

Does GPT-3 qualify as a co-author of a scientific paper publishable in peer-review journals according to the ICMJE criteria? A case study

This paper explores the potential for a system to be a co-author on an academic paper based on the criteria proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We used a third generation generative pretrained transformer (GPT-3) to write a review paper on the topic of its choice: The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Cognitive Function. The system was asked to fulfill the four main criteria for co-authorship as recommended by ICMJE, which includes contributions to the conception or design of the work; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Our results showed that the system was able to fulfill the criteria, with significant difficulties with accurate and reliable referencing. We also explored the ethical implications of using AI systems for research and found that it is important to take a cautious approach when considering its use for scientific authorship. This case study provides a methodology for further investigations into the possibilities and limitations of automated writing.

Reporting of retrospective registration in clinical trial publications: a cross-sectional study of German trials

ObjectiveProspective registration has been widely implemented and accepted as a best practice in clinical research, but retrospective registration is still commonly found. We assessed to what extent retrospective registration is...

Clinical and epidemiological aspects of ulcerative colitis in the Irkutsk region

AIM: to study sociodemographic, clinical and epidemiological features in patients with ulcerative colitis in the Irkutsk region (Russia).PATIENTS AND METHODS: the database of the Irkutsk IBD Center included 1,122 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) registered from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2019. The study is retrospective with a focus on the results of follow-up, check up and treatment in different periods of their disease (acute attack, chronic course, remission). Statistical analysis was performed according to the principles of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).RESULTS: the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in the Irkutsk Oblast over the previous 14 years has increased by 2.7 times, of ulcerative colitis — by 3.1 times and was 3.91 person-years per 100,000 population. The prevalence of UC was 68.5 per 100,000 population. The annual increase in new UC cases was 46.6 ± 8.2. Most patients had total lesion (68.4%) and moderate-to-severe disease (46.9%). Extra-intestinal manifestations (13.6%) were represented by skin lesions (40.7%). Body weight deficiency occurred in 9.9% in females and in 5.1% in males. The probability of colectomy was 1.4/100 patient-years (follow-up period was 7049.5 patient-years; n = 1122). Patients underwent urgent operations in 76.3%. Postoperative mortality was 1.03/100 patient-years (exposition time — 291.6 years, n = 3). Total mortality for the entire follow-up period was 1.8% — 0.34/100 patient-years (exposition time — 4440.8 years).CONCLUSION: objective epidemiological data, clinical features and treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis in long-term follow-up in the Irkutsk Oblast are presented. The results of such studies on a national scale can serve as a platform for further scientific research and planning of socio-economic programs.

Effectivity of functional echocardiography in paediatric intensive care unit: An observational study

The Journal is the primary organ of Continuing Paediatric Medical Education in Sri Lanka. The journal also has a website. Free full text access is available for all readers.The Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is now indexed in SciVerse Scopus (Source Record ID 19900193609), Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR), CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International Global Health Database), DOAJ and is available in Google, as well as Google Scholar.The policies of the journal are modelled on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations.

Diagnosis and management of lower urinary tract dysfunction in childhood

The Journal is the primary organ of Continuing Paediatric Medical Education in Sri Lanka. The journal also has a website. Free full text access is available for all readers.The Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is now indexed in SciVerse Scopus (Source Record ID 19900193609), Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR), CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International Global Health Database), DOAJ and is available in Google, as well as Google Scholar.The policies of the journal are modelled on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations.

Open access publications

The Journal is the primary organ of Continuing Paediatric Medical Education in Sri Lanka. The journal also has a website. Free full text access is available for all readers.The Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is now indexed in SciVerse Scopus (Source Record ID 19900193609), Index Medicus for South-East Asia Region (IMSEAR), CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International Global Health Database), DOAJ and is available in Google, as well as Google Scholar.The policies of the journal are modelled on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health is recognised by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as a publication following the ICMJE Recommendations.