Author Guidelines For Journal Research Articles

Evaluation of Transparency and Openness Guidelines in Physical Therapist Journals.

The goals of this study were to evaluate the extent that physical therapist journals support open science research practices by adhering to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines and to assess the relationship between journal scores and their respective journal impact factor (JIF). Scimago, mapping studies, the National Library of Medicine, and journal author guidelines were searched to identify physical therapist journals for inclusion. Journals were graded on 10 standards (29 available total points) related to transparency with data, code, research materials, study design and analysis, preregistration of studies and statistical analyses, replication, and open science badges. The relationship between journal transparency and openness scores and their JIF was determined. Thirty-five journals' author guidelines were assigned transparency and openness factor scores. The median score (interquartile range) across journals was 3.00 out of 29 (3.00) points (for all journals the scores ranged from 0 to 8). The 2 standards with the highest degree of implementation were design and analysis transparency (reporting guidelines) and study preregistration. No journals reported on code transparency, materials transparency, replication, and open science badges. TOP factor scores were a significant predictor of JIF scores. There is low implementation of the TOP standards by physical therapist journals. TOP factor scores demonstrated predictive abilities for JIF scores. Policies from journals must improve to make open science practices the standard in research. Journals are in an influential position to guide practices that can improve the rigor of publication which, ultimately, enhances the evidence-based information used by physical therapists. Transparent, open, and reproducible research will move the profession forward by improving the quality of research and increasing the confidence in results for implementation in clinical care.

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.

A study of reviewing at the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology: Accepting, declining, fairness, and responsibilities

A study of reviewing at the <i>International Journal of Osteoarchaeology</i>: Accepting, declining, fairness, and responsibilities

Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample.

Objectives:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.Methods:A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014–2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.Results:The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.Conclusions:Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

Invigorating Prescribed Fire Science Through Improved Reporting Practices

Interest in prescribed fire science has grown over the past few decades due to the increasing application of prescribed fire by managers to mitigate wildfire hazards, restore biodiversity, and improve ecosystem resilience. Numerous ecological disciplines use prescribed fire experiments to provide land managers with evidence-based information to support prescribed fire management. Documenting variation in the context and conditions during prescribed fire experimental treatments is critical for management inference, but inconsistencies in reporting critical experimental details can complicate interpretation. Such details are needed to provide ecological and empirical context for data, facilitate experimental replication, enable meta-analyses, and maximize utility for other scientists and practitioners. To evaluate reporting quality in the recent literature, we reviewed 219 prescribed fire experiments from 16 countries published in 11 refereed journals over the last 5 years. Our results suggest substantial shortcomings in the reporting of critical data that compromise the utility of this research. Few studies had specific information on burning conditions such as fuel moisture (22%), quantitative fuel loads (36%), fire weather (53%), and fire behavior (30%). Further, our analysis revealed that 63% of the studies provided precise coordinates for their study area, while 30% of studies indicated the prescribed fire date. Only 54% of the studies provided descriptions of the ignition characteristics. Given these common deficiencies, we suggest minimum reporting standards for future prescribed fire experiments. These standards could be applied to journal author guidelines, directed to researchers and reviewers by the editor, and promoted in the education of fire ecologists. Establishing reporting standards will increase the quality, applicability, and reproducibility of prescribed fire science, facilitate future research syntheses, and foster actionable science.

The Place of Research Paradigms in SoTL Practice: An Inquiry

Research paradigms constitute views that a researcher holds about (a) the nature of reality and what they can know about it (that is, ontology); (b) the potential influence of their existing ideas and values on what they want to know, how they try to get to know, and criteria they use to make judgments about knowledge (epistemology); and (c) appropriate strategies for developing and evaluating knowledge (methodology). These views may influence their conception, design, implementation, and accounts of research projects. Critical self-reflection (reflexivity) is required to recognize these views and articulate their implications for projects. As scholars of teaching and learning, we attend explicitly to these views and their implications for our projects. However, our observation of practice in the field of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in general, as documented in publications, indicates that while some colleagues attend to such views and implications, others do not. This observation prompted us to explore the extent to which journal-based accounts of SoTL projects refer to paradigm-related views and possible explanations for the attention that their authors do, or do not, give to this consideration. Explanations proposed include conceptions of SoTL, journal author guidelines and review criteria, and properties of the concept of a paradigm. Recommendations for educating new SoTL practitioners about research paradigms and their possible relevance to SoTL, based on our inquiry, are also presented.

Perspective: Cell therapy, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and James Lind.

Perspective: Cell therapy, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and James Lind.

Guidance on Writing for the AORN Journal

Guidance on Writing for the <i><scp>AORN</scp> Journal</i>

Editorial

The 1o Scientific Symposium about Natural Resources (1o Simposio Cientifico sobre Recursos Naturais - SCRN) has as theme “Natural environmental and products: an interdisciplinary view”, and the main aim was encourage discussion among graduation and postgraduate students, and researchers with different disciplinary views, about the exploration, conservation and monitoring of natural resources, bringing out the importance of multidisciplinary actions in research to a responsible regional development. The event was a promotion of the Postgraduation Program in Natural Resource (Programa de Pos-graduacao em Recursos Naturais - PGRN) of the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul (Universidade Estadual de Mato Grosso do Sul - UEMS) and received financial supported by Foundation for Support the Development of Teaching, Science and Technology of Mato Grosso do Sul (Fundacao de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciencia e Tecnologia do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul, Fundect). The event was organized in the following thematic scopes: 1) Applied materials development for natural resources; 2) Analytical methods and control for natural resources; 3) Valuation and characterization of natural environmental; 4) Environmental monitoring; 5) Natural products and derived from vegetal and animal origins; 6) Evaluation, systematic and chemistry ecology. In this special issue published in Orbital: The Electronic Journal of Chemistry the reader has a sample of the 250 works presented during four event days. To publish in this issue all participants were invited to submit a full paper following the journal Author Guidelines. Sandro Marcio Lima (UEMS) Chairman Claudia Andrea Lima Cardoso (UEMS) Guest Editor

STANCE AND ENGAGEMENT DISCOURSE MARKERS IN JOURNAL’S “AUTHOR GUIDELINES”

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in the study of interactional metadiscourse markers in different contexts. However, not much research has been conducted about the discourse of journal author guidelines, especially the use of meta-discourse markers in this genre. Therefore, this corpus-based study had three main aims: 1) to delve deep into the types, frequencies and functions of stance and engagement markers based on Fu’s (2012) interactional metadiscourse taxonomy, 2) to compare the distribution of stance and engagement features in journal author guidelines and 3) to investigate whether there is a significant difference between macro/micro interactional metadiscourse markers in journal author guidelines. A corpus of 280 author guidelines produced by seven leading international academic publishers in eight academic sub-disciplines in the humanities and social sciences was compiled and analyzed. The results of the analysis showed that engagement features (reader-oriented) enjoyed higher frequency of use in journal author guidelines. Moreover, the difference between the frequency of stance and engagement features was statistically significant. Furthermore, differences reported between macro and micro interactional metadiscourse were statistically significant. The extensive use of macro interactional metadiscourse markers indicated a high degree of interactionality of journal author guidelines. The present study gives us considerable insight into the dialogic nature of a totally neglected academic genre.

Clinimetrics Corner: Publishing a Scientific Manuscript on Manual Therapy

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the way to introduce new information that has clinical implications. However, clinicians may be reluctant to embark on the publication process because of lack of confidence or uncertainty about the process. The aim of this paper is to summarize the requirements of that process and to provide tips for successful publication to encourage potential clinical authors of manual therapy articles. In general, articles should contribute knowledge, corroborate or contradict previous knowledge, or summarize existing knowledge. Articles should be clearly structured, with abstract, introduction, methods, discussion, conclusion, and references; and often include tables and figures. The content of each of these sections is described. The use of standardized checklists is encouraged and the format should adhere to each journal's author guidelines. Submission is electronic and typically first the editor or deputy editor reviews for suitability, adherence to journal format, and quality of writing. If deemed suitable, the article is then sent out for blinded review by two reviewers with expertise in that area. Review typically takes 6–8 weeks, and all communication is via the editor. A decision is made then to either accept, accept with amendments to be made, reject but with advice to resubmit, or reject outright. In any re-submissions, the review teams' comments should be diligently addressed, either making the recommended changes or justifying why they have not been adopted. Common reasons for rejection of articles are given. Finally, the authors provide some tips for publication to help readers with successful submission of articles.

Scholarly Publication

Scholarly Publication

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Direct Links to Author Guidelines

Direct Links to Author Guidelines

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement

Author Guidelines for Journal of Nursing Measurement