Uniform Requirements For Manuscripts Research Articles

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Time in the Hospital is Not Always Normal: What does one year’s worth of studies tell us?

Abstract Context: Patient length of hospital stay (LOS) is an important measure of timeliness and efficiency in healthcare quality studies.Objective: Because conclusions drawn about LOS may be influenced by assumptions of variable distribution, we sought to determine the quality of LOS data analysis in published pediatric clinical studies. Study Selection: Articles from PubMed were included if they were of pediatric clinical studies published in English for a one year period of time between 6/1/2009 and 5/31/2010 where LOS was an outcome variable.Data Extraction: The reported statistical approach was extracted from published manuscripts by 2 independent reviewers and included hospital LOS: distribution, measures of central tendency, and methods of statistical comparisons. Results: Of 795 identified studies, 214 were included: only 33 reported LOS distribution of which 5 used the incorrect measure of central tendency. One hundred and two studies reported LOS means, 64 reported medians, and 22 reported both means and medians. Of 142 comparative studies, 61 used non-parametric methods, 53 parametric methods, 1 used both parametric and non-parametric methods, 7 transformed the variable, 18 did not specify, and 2 were missing.Conclusions: Although used frequently as a measure of healthcare outcomes, there is wide variation in the statistical approach and reporting of LOS. We recommend that, at a minimum, investigators should follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals reporting of statistical data. Furthermore, investigators should evaluate, report, and use LOS distributions to inform LOS analyses.

Clinicaltrials.gov: Is the Glass Half Full?

Clinicaltrials.gov: Is the Glass Half Full?

Ethical consideration in academic medical writing

With the progress of human civilization,the harmonious development of society is gradually realized by different researchers.Medicine,as a science directly serving humans,emphasizes more on humanism than other sciences.Medical research is not only characterized by scientificity and innovativeness,but also by ethicality.More and more biomedical journals are paying attention to issues of ethics.This review discussed the ethical issues in academic medical writing based on the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals published by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the discussions by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Key words: Medical research; Ethics; Academic writing

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Manuscript Preparation and Submission: Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Biomedical Journal. Updated April 2010.

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Manuscript Preparation and Submission: Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Biomedical Journal. Updated April 2010.

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication Updated April 2010

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjch.v37i1.15353 BANGLADESH J CHILD HEALTH 2013; VOL 37 (1) : 52-73

Revision of the instructions to authors to require a structured abstract, digital object identifier of each reference, and author’s voice recording may increase journal access

In February 2013, I received a message from a database that the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (JEEHP) was reviewed for its inclusion in the database. The following are representative of the comments received: Citedness is below expectations; There is no international diversity among authors; Only one issue is published per year; Author instructions need to be described in greater detail. Among our responses to these comments, revised instructions to authors will take effect on May 1, 2013 so that the papers beginning in May 2013 conform to the revised instructions. JEEHP follows Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (http://www.icmje.org/) if otherwise not described in the instructions to authors; however, instead of simply following the Uniform Requirements, there are several stipulations that would be worth explicitly specifying in the instructions to authors. The three most important changes to the instructions to authors are moving from a non-structured to a structured abstract, requiring a digital object identifier (DOI) at the end of each reference, and requiring the authors’ explanation of their paper in an audio recording of the author speaking or video recording in their mother tongue or in English. A structured abstract has gradually become the rule rather than the exception in medical journals. Structuring an abstract with sections such as Purpose, Methods, Results, and Conclusion, not only provides more systematic information to readers, but assists authors in determining the most important content to include in the abstract. Since most researchers are too busy to read the full text of papers, they usually read only abstracts. A concise and lucid purpose and conclusion in the abstract will lead readers to move to the full text when they find it particularly relevant. Audio or video descriptions of the contents will also increase access to the content for those with disabilities, who share the author’s mother tongue, or who simply enjoy learning in a different modality. Making the audio or video streaming of the authors available on the homepage will promote the content of the papers to internet visitors. Although JEEHP is an international journal indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and CINAHL, the number of submissions has remained rather small. In 2012, I received 33 unsolicited manuscripts, and the acceptance rate was 36.4%. The published paper’s authors were from Korea, Nepal, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Fiji, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The 2012 SCIE impact factor manually calculated from Web of Science was 1.222 when only citable papers such as reviews, research articles (original articles), and brief reports were considered. This value is expected to increase year by year. It has been possible by the help of worldwide good reviewers. JEEHP is an online only journal with volume (year) and article number but no issue number. It is not yet possible to publish this journal with multiple issues that can be easily seen in print journals, since the papers are published as soon as possible after acceptance. Beginning in 2013, social network services such as Facebook or Twitter links, QR codes, Pubreader, and an app for the iPad were added. A mobile web version of JEEHP will appear soon. This year, CrossMark, Fundref, and ORCID provided by CrossRef will be introduced to JEEHP. I will do my best to solicit more manuscripts from a variety of countries to provide invaluable information to medical health professionals worldwide. JEEHP has the merits of gold open access according to the Creative Commons Attribution License and no article processing charge on the author side, two significant incentives to researchers to select JEEHP as a journal for submission. Being indexed in a variety of international databases might be an even greater incentive. This year, JEEHP reached its tenth year of publication. The most recent revision of the instructions to authors is just one more step in a decade-long effort to reach the goal of becoming an outstanding journal focused on disseminating the latest knowledge on educational evaluation across the health professions and around the world.

Combined workshops on medical writing and publication ethics for Japanese postgraduate students and faculty members

Although the importance both of skills in medical writing in English and of an understanding of ethics in medical publishing is increasingly recognised, these subjects are not comprehensively taught to Japanese medical doctors and students. Limited resources, teaching staff, and time prevent most Japanese medical schools from implementing standard educational programmes on these topics. To address this, we developed two brief but intensive programmes of lectures and group-based workshops, each incorporating both medical writing skills and publication ethics; one was for Japanese postgraduate medical students, the other for faculty development. The main topics in the programme for postgraduate students were the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, and oral and poster presentation skills. The programme emphasised the importance of medical writing skills and of issues, such as authorship and conflict of interest. The faculty development programme covered handling communications with editors and reviewers after manuscript submission, as well as ethical misconduct issues. We believe these programmes provide a unique and effective means of enhancing awareness of publication ethics and improving medical writing skills among professionals in Japanese healthcare institutions.

A survey of instructions to authors in surgical journals on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA

INTRODUCTIONGuidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials – CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA). The aim of this study was to establish to what extent surgical journals formally endorse CONSORT and PRISMA in the respective reporting of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews.METHODSOverall, 136 surgical journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports® were studied. Author guidelines were scrutinised for the following guidance: conflict of interests (COI), the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM), clinical trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA.RESULTSThe frequency of guidance endorsement was found to be as follows: COI 82%, URM 62%, trial registration 32%, CONSORT 29% and PRISMA 10%. Journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA. Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to insist on disclosure of COI and to endorse CONSORT.CONCLUSIONSGuidelines produced to improve publication practice have not been implemented widely by surgical journals. This may contribute to an overall poorer quality of published research. Editors of surgical journals should uniformly endorse reporting guidance and update their instructions to authors to reflect this.

How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!

Most of the scientific work presented as abstracts (platforms and posters) at various conferences have the potential to be published as articles in peer-reviewed journals. This DIY (Do It Yourself) article on how to achieve that goal is an extension of the symposium presented at the 36th European Congress of Cytology, Istanbul, Turkey (presentation available on net at http://alturl.com/q6bfp). The criteria for manuscript authorship should be based on the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. The next step is to choose the appropriate journal to submit the manuscript and review the ‘Instructions to the authors’ for that journal. Although initially it may appear to be an insurmountable task, diligent organizational discipline with a little patience and perseverance with input from mentors should lead to the preparation of a nearly perfect publishable manuscript even by a novice. Ultimately, the published article is an excellent track record of academic productivity with contribution to the general public good by encouraging the exchange of experience and innovation. It is a highly rewarding conduit to the personal success and growth leading to the collective achievement of continued scientific progress. Recent emergences of journals and publishers offering the platform and opportunity to publish under an open access charter provides the opportunity for authors to protect their copyright from being lost to conventional publishers. Publishing your work on this open platform is the most rewarding mission and is the recommended option in the current modern era.[This open access article can be linked (copy-paste link from HTML version of this article) or reproduced FREELY if original reference details are prominently identifiable].

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication: Updated April 2010

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication: <i>Updated April 2010</i>

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials

Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of...

New IJH guidelines highlight greater transparency

Biomedical research has grown to become a truly international enterprise in which scientific advances are increasingly linked to financial, legal, social, and ethical issues of deep import. They have an impact not only on the conduct of experiments in laboratories or trials in clinical settings but importantly on the manner in which the results of such research are communicated as well. Such communications are a fundamental responsibility of all scientists, serving to push back the frontiers of human knowledge, promote better understanding and application of new discoveries, and accelerate discussion among peers and the general public. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the dissemination of findings is fundamental to the success and sustainability of the scientific enterprise. At the International Journal of Hematology, we take the responsibilities associated with our role as stewards over the reporting of hematological research very seriously. It has always been the policy of the journal to coordinate the review of submitted manuscripts in a timely, fair, and constructive manner and to support authors in their efforts to gain the widest possible audience for their work. As part of this commitment, the editors have developed a set of guidelines to assist them in the process of creating manuscripts with an emphasis on quality, clarity, accessibility, and impact. We now feel, however, that it is time to revise these guidelines to bring them up to date with emerging global standards for the ethical publication of biomedical results and to make explicit a number of expectations that were tacit in the previous versions of the IJH ‘‘Information for Authors’’. These changes are in general conformity with the recommendations set forth in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) formulated by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which were developed ‘‘to help authors and editors in their mutual task of creating and distributing accurate, clear, and easily accessible reports of biomedical studies’’, and are available from the ICMJE website (http://www.icmje.org). Our newly revised ‘‘Information for Authors’’ document can be downloaded from the journal website at http://www. springer.com/medicine/internal/journal/12185. The main additions to the ‘‘Information for Authors’’ can be found in the expanded Editorial Policies section, which now outlines expectations for specific areas, such as the conduct of animal studies, authorship, reporting of potential conflicts of interest, and research on human subjects. These changes to our authors’ guide are by no means radical departures from the high ethical standards we believe are maintained in the great majority of laboratories and clinical research programs. We have made them explicit, however, in line with the growing international expectations for greater transparency, accountability, and disclosure on the part of scientific researchers. The new requirements for the disclosure of author affiliations or activities that could conceivably lead to conflicts of interest serve as a case in point. It is no longer safe to rely on the assumption that financial or other relationships on the part of authors will go unquestioned when scientific results are challenged. We have therefore followed the ICMJE in requiring that all authors accompany research submissions with a simple statement, in the form of a checklist, that describe any financial or personal relationships that might be perceived as potentially biasing the reporting of their findings. This is not to say that bias inevitably results from such relationships, only that their disclosure is an essential component in ensuring transparency and impartiality. The definition of authorship is a second area in which the new guidelines are more explicit. We require that all authors on an article’s byline ‘‘have made substantive

Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacologic Treatment of Bipolar Disorders

This study aimed to assess (1) the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorder, (2) the potential improvement in quality of reporting over time, and (3) differences in quality of reporting between journals that endorse or do not endorse the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. A systematic literature search was done to identify all randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2008 relevant to the pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorder. The search strategy of the published National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline for management of bipolar disorders was used and adapted. All included and excluded clinical trials mentioned in the guideline and published from 2000 onward were reviewed for eligibility. For an update search from July 2004 through December 2008, an adapted search strategy was used in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Ovid, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Titles and abstracts were scanned for relevance, and full texts were ordered in case of uncertainty to maximize sensitivity. Reference lists of retrieved systematic reviews were checked. All full texts were checked for eligibility. Only relevant randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2008 were included. Abstracts, randomized controlled trials published before 2000, nonrandomized clinical studies, pooled analyses, editorials, reviews, case reports, observational studies, and unpublished reports were excluded. A checklist based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was used to assess quality of reporting of all included studies. A total of 105 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Of the 72 applicable checklist items, 42% were generally reported adequately and 25% inadequately. Reporting was especially poor for randomization procedures, with, for example, 16% of studies defining generation of random allocation sequence and 15% defining method of allocation concealment. Inadequate randomization increases the potential for bias to influence the final results. Authors of clinical guidelines or health technology assessments are forced to exclude or downgrade trials with inadequate reporting on randomization. Also, information with essential clinical relevance was generally reported inadequately, such as the effect size (in 18% of studies) and the number needed to treat (in 8% of studies). Both effect measures are more important for clinicians than individual point estimates that have been reported adequately. No consistent trend could be shown for improvement in quality of reporting over time or for reporting of essential methodological items differently in journals that endorse the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM). The reporting of information on clinical relevance and generalizability of results, however, showed a consistent trend toward better reporting in journals endorsing the URM, with significant differences for the reporting of secondary outcomes (100% vs 89.9%; P = .03) and adverse events (93.2% vs 73.8%; P = .011) and interpretation of results with regard to totality of data (30.2% vs 11.5%; P = .029). Our findings suggest that, while some trial-related information is well reported, a good part of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in bipolar disorder falls well below the required and also practically feasible level for many aspects essential for adequate interpretation of methodological quality and clinical relevance. Authors should be further encouraged to follow the CONSORT criteria.

The Use of Statistical Methodology in Articles in Medical Journals and Suggestions for the Quality Improvement of the Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease

Statistical analysis is an essential component of all biomedical research. Use of descriptive and inferential analysis enables researchers to summarize findings and conduct generalizations from research findings. Physicians must keep current with clinical information to practice evidence-based medicine. In doing so, physicians need to access reports of original research. This requires the reader to critically appraise the design, conduct, and analysis of each study and subsequently interpret the results. However, many surveys reveal prevalent statistical errors in articles in medical journals, and it is also clear that many physicians are seriously unfamiliar with statistical methods. This constitutes a major barrier to the development of medical research. Given this situation, this review article discusses the use of statistical methods in medical journal articles, the status of statistical errors among them, and the results of evaluation of physicians' understanding of statistical methods. Moreover, this article introduces the current trend in statistical reviews to improve the quality of medical journal articles, and explains the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Finally, the article proposes several specific ways to improve the quality of the Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease. [Pediatr Allergy Respir Dis(Korea) 2011;21:144

Editorial policies aimed at improving the transparency and validity of published research

Byline: T. Sathyanarayana Rao, Prathap. Tharyan Research published in local and national journals, such as the Indian Journal of Psychiatry , is as important as research published in international journals, in order to contextualize the evidence on which healthcare and health policy needs are to be based. [sup][1] However, the quality of research published in local and national journals, particularly those from low and middle-income countries, is often considered inferior to that of research articles published in international journals. [sup][2] If these research findings are used to guide clinical practice, health outcomes may be adversely affected. Editorial policies, and adherence to these policies, determine to a large extent the quality of reporting of research published in journals. [sup][3] The duties of medical journal editors include, among others, safeguarding the rights of the study participants; establishing policies of submission, review and acceptance of manuscripts; and working towards improving the quality of the conduct and publication of research. [sup][4] These can be aided by the unambiguous endorsement of standards that improve transparency in reporting research and by the provision of clear instructions to authors about what is expected of them. The instructions to authors in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry have therefore been amended to endorse internationally accepted reporting standards that are appropriate for the research design used. Authors of manuscripts are expected to adhere to these instructions when preparing manuscripts for submission in order to increase the chances that their manuscripts will be accepted. These amendments will also aid peer reviewers to readily identify whether the submitted manuscript meets the criteria for transparency in research reporting. Endorsing the ICMJE Uniform Requirements and use of Design-Specific Reporting Standards The Indian Journal of Psychiatry continues to endorse the submission of manuscripts in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); [sup][5] the web-link to the ICMJE requirements has now been provided to enable authors to access the requirements in their entirety. The Uniform Requirements endorse design-specific reporting standards, and the revised instructions to authors now provide links to the appropriate guidance for interventional observational studies, and qualitative research, and for reports comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Consort 2010 Authors of randomized clinical trials are now required not only to prepare and submit their manuscripts in accordance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, [sup][6],[7] but also to use the appropriate extensions of the CONSORT statement for trial designs that differ from the standard parallel-group trial or that use herbal interventions, and on reporting harms. [sup][8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Authors are also expected to submit, along with the manuscript, the CONSORT checklist and participant flow diagram. The web-links to templates for both that can be downloaded and appropriately modified have also been provided. The former will not be published with the trial report but will aid effective peer review by stating exactly where in the manuscript the required CONSORT element can be found. The latter will be published and will provide information that will aid interpretation of the generalizability of the results by disclosing details of those excluded from the trial so that the reader can evaluate the proportions excluded, particularly for not fulfilling inclusion criteria. It will also disclose the proportions in each trial arm that completed the various stages of the trial, thus making it possible to evaluate if the analysis of the results was complete. Strobe Most research published in this journal are observational in nature and authors are required to follow the guidance provided in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement for reporting observational studies, typically cross-sectional studies, case-control studies and cohort studies. …

Uniform requirements for medical journals – an idea whose time has come?

Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals have been developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal editors. Authors are an important part of the journal but their perspective is often ignored. Certain journals from developing countries have problems with manuscript submission, review and publication process. Uniform requirements for medical journals to deal with manuscripts are urgently required. The authors put forward a reasonable time frame for various stages in the publishing process and discuss methods in which journals from developing countries can streamline and expedite the publication process.

Journal to shift practice on obtaining conflict of interest declarations

As Neuro-Oncology has grown from a quarterly to a monthly journal over the last 4 years, it has borne both the blessings and the burdens of that growth. For instance, the editorial office now handles almost 550 manuscripts a year (new submissions and revisions). At the start of the process, this means ensuring that the articles adhere to our guidelines for submission. One key task for our peer review coordinator is ensuring that authors have given us all the information we need to remain in compliance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the ICMJE, which has formulated the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which Neuro-Oncology is a member, as stated in our own Instructions to Authors. Recently, the journal has seen several instances in which manuscripts entered the review process with no conflict of interest declared, only to have such declarations made after multiple revisions and (in some cases) acceptance for publication. In the past, when there were fewer submissions and fewer published articles, the journal used a separate form to obtain information about conflict of interest from authors. However, as traffic flow has increased, it has become impractical to continue to use a separate document for such declarations—in part because it places an unnecessary burden on the editorial office, but also because we believe that reviewers benefit from having such information when they decide whether they can fairly review a paper (more on that below).

Changes in the Ethos of Medical Publications as Reflected in Progressive Alterations in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (1979–2008)

Changes in the Ethos of Medical Publications as Reflected in Progressive Alterations in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (1979–2008)

Editorial Policies of Pediatric Journals

To study whether specific recommendations aiming to improve publication practice were included in author instructions of pediatric journals. We identified 69 journals in the subject category "pediatrics" of the Journal Citation Report 2007 that publish original research articles. From the journals' online author instructions, we extracted information regarding endorsement of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and of 5 major reporting guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and trial registration. Two investigators collected data independently. The URM were mentioned in author instructions of 38 of the 69 journals (55%). Endorsement of reporting guidelines was low: CONSORT was referred to most frequently (14 journals; 20%); each of the other 4 reporting guidelines was mentioned in less than 10% of author instructions. Fifty-four journals (78%) explicitly required authors to disclose conflicts of interest, and 16 (23%) either recommended or required trial registration. The odds of endorsing the URM increased by 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-4.34) per additional impact factor point. Similarly, the odds increased by 2.32 (95% CI, 0.95-5.70) for requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest and by 3.66 (95% CI, 1.74-7.71) for requiring trial registration. Many pediatric journals do not include recommendations that aim to improve publication practice in their author instructions. About one-fifth of journals do not require authors to disclose conflicts of interest on manuscript submission and more than three-quarters do not require/recommend trial registration.