Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012

Biochemia Medica

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 211-216

  Marušić, Ana ^a   Malički, Mario ^a   Von Elm, Erik ^b   Bosch, Xavier ^c   Flanagin, Annette ^d   Gøtzsche, Peter ^e   Marcovitch, Harvey ^h   Schriger, David L ^f   Bosch, Fèlix ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^d JAMA   (United States)

^e University of Copenhagen   (Denmark)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g Esteve Foundation   (Spain)

^h Esteve Foundation ^*

Author keywords

Authorship; Conflict of interest; Editorial policies; Peer review; Periodicals as topic

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITOR; FUNDING; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84902202798     PISSN: 13300962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2014.023     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Wieland LS, Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records. BMJ 2012; 344: d7501.
2. Djebbari A, Karamycheva S, Howe E, Quackenbush J. Me-SHer: identifying biological concepts in microarray assays based on PubMed references and MeSH terms. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 3324-26.
3. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals: Roles and responsibilities of authors, contributors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and owners: defining the role of authors and contributors. [Internet]. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Available at: http://www. icmje. org/about_a. html. Accessed November 24, 2013.
4. Malički M, von Elm E, Marušić A. Study design, publication outcome, and funding of research presented at international congresses on peer review and biomedical publication. JAMA 2014; 311: 1065-7.
5. Scheetz MD. Instructions to the Author: An integrity issue. Investigating Research Integrity. Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity; Nov 19-20, 2000. Bethesda, Maryland: Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health & Human Services 2001; 285-290.
6. Redman BK, Merz JF. Research misconduct policies of high impact biomedical journals. Account Res 2006; 13: 247-58.
7. Resnik DB, Peddada S, Brunson W Jr. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Account Res 2009; 16: 254-67.
8. Bosch X, Hernández C, Pericas JM, Doti P, Marušić A. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS One 2012; 7: e51928.
9. Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Niemeyer CM, Antes G, von Elm E. Editorial policies of pediatric journals: survey of instructions for authors. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 268-72.
10. Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Antes G, von Elm E. Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions. BMC Pediatr 2011; 11: 27.
11. Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Grambauer N, Antes G, von Elm E. Editorial policies of hematology and oncology journals: An analysis of author instructions. Proceedings of the 19th Cochrane Colloquium. 2011 Oct 19-22. Madrid, Spain.
12. Kunath F, Grobe HR, Keck B, Rücker G, Wullich B, Antes G, Meerpohl JJ. Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials. BMJ Open 2011; 1: e000430.
13. Kunath F, Grobe HR, Rücker G, Engehausen D, Antes G, Wullich B, Meerpohl JJ. Do journals publishing in the field of urology endorse reporting guidelines? A survey of author instructions. Urol Int 2012; 88: 54-59.
14. Gøtzsche PC. We need access to all data from all clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 12: ED000035.
15. Ziman JM. Public knowledge: an essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, University Press; 1968.
16. Warren JR. Helicobacter: the ease and difficulty of a new discovery (Nobel lecture). ChemMedChem 2006; 1: 672-85.
17. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 249-53.
18. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 17028-33.
19. Bošnjak L, Puljak L, Vukojević K, Marušić A. Analysis of a number and type of publications that editors publish in their own journals: case study of scholarly journals in Croatia. Scientometrics 2011; 86: 227-33.
20. Research Councils UK. RCUK Policy on open access. Available at: http://www. rcuk. ac. uk/research/outputs/. Accessed May 5th 2014.
21. Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act of 2013. A proposed law (S. 350, 2013) introduced in Senate on February 13th 2013. Available at: http://beta. congress. gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/350/text?q=s350. Accessed November 24, 2013.
22. von Elm E, Wandel S, Juni P. The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals. Scientometrics 2009; 81: 747-55.
23. Steen RG, Casedevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e68397.