Search

Background: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role.Methods: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.Results: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment.Conclusions: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the ethical obligation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to share clinical trial data within the foundations, government agencies and industry in Canada. They outline the clinical study of the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. The authors cite the importance of transparency for sharing clinical trial data.

The author argues that journals should not stop publishing research funded by the drug industry. He notes that "BMJ" and several BMJ journals have banned submissions of tobacco industry-funded research. While both drug and tobacco industries are out to make money, he points out that the drug industry makes and sells products to improve health and medical journals aim to publish research that will improve health. It is believed that the tobacco industry makes and sells products that harm health.

In this article, the authors reflect on journal's policies regarding the publishing of articles or research funded by the tobacco industry. They state that the journal will not consider the publishing of studies that are partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry. They state that refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry affirms commitment of the publishing industry to not to encourage the tobacco industry.

The authors focus on the decision of the periodical not to publish any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry as of December 2013. They say that editing and publishing is based on the assumption that medical journals are published exist for the purpose of advancing knowledge that can be used to promote health and reduce disease.

A response to letters to the editor about an article on qualitative research in the February 20, 2016 issue is presented.

The article explains that "The BMJ" journal cannot grant the request of some qualitative researchers to change its policy of rejecting qualitative research. Topics covered include the changes in the journal's research goals and objectives, preference of studies with definitive questions relevant to an international audience, lack of generalizable answers in qualitative studies and the focus of other journals in "The BMJ" family on qualitative studies such as "BMJ Open."

The author reflects on the need for medical literature to print in medical journals. According to the author, "British Medical Journal" is a good choice for authors hoping to publish their material because of free service, open access, and no word limits on research studies. She comments on the editorial process for research articles at the periodical.

The authors discusses how readers and interested parties can join in the self correction process that is important to medical research's credibility by being able to access prepublication histories. They say that open peer review should boost the editors and reviewers' accountability. They also discuss open peer review's potential to enhance the reporting of randomized studies and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

The article presents information on the action and effectiveness of oseltamivir in the treatment of flu. It reflects that the World Health Organization manifested that oseltamivir if prescribed properly can abate the risk of pneumonia. It informs that data from 12 randomised controlled trials for which patients suffering from flu- like illness were enrolled unveils oseltamivir failed to signify that hospitalization rates were any lower than placebo.

A call for papers on peer review and biomedical publication is presented.