Search

Introduction: The benchmark of a medical thesis' success is often its acceptance for publication in an indexed journal., Aim: To determine the publication rate of practice theses in the field of Cardiology at the Faculty of Medicine of Sousse (FMSo) in Tunisia and to identify predictive factors for successful publication., Methods: We conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of Cardiology theses defended at FMSo from 2000 to 2019. Data were extracted from the theses' cover pages, abstracts, and conclusions. The publication status was ascertained via searches in "MEDLINE", "Scopus", and "Google Scholar". Predictive factors for publication were identified using multivariate analysis with a 90% Confidence Interval (CI)., Results: Of the 111 Cardiology theses defended at FMSo between 2000 and 2019, 36 were published yielding 42 scientific articles (publication rate of 32%). Notably, 86% of these articles were indexed in "MEDLINE" and/or "Scopus". In 79% of cases, doctoral candidates were co-authors of the resultant publications. Publication was significantly influenced by three factors: scientific mentorship by an Assistant or Associate Professor (aOR=3.021; 90%CI: 1.06-10.14; p=0.082), a prospective study design (aOR=2.536; 90%CI: 1.07-6.02; p=0.076), and a satisfactory quality of writing (aOR=2.384; 90%CI: 1.11-5.11; p=0.061)., Conclusion: The publication of Cardiology theses at FMSo was found to be associated with the prospective design of the study and the quality of writing. Thus, it is imperative to enhance the research methodology and scientific communication skills of medical thesis candidates and their mentors to facilitate the transition from academic dissertations to medical articles.

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Objectives: To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery., Method: The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis., Results: Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022., Conclusion: The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the core of publication ethics, and language around DEI has been shown to affect patient outcomes. Inclusive language is an important piece of effective communication and is one way to demonstrate and foster a welcoming, respectful, and accessible environment. Non-inclusive terminology in research may represent implicit bias, which is not typically corrected through introspection; thus, a systematic approach is needed in scientific writing. The prevalence of inclusive language guidance in leading medical journals is currently unknown., Objective: Investigators assess the prevalence and quality of inclusive language guidelines in author instructions in highly cited English language medical journals., Design: A cross-sectional review of author instructions from a convenience sample of 100 highly cited medical journals was completed in January 2023., Subjects: Each journal's author instructions were reviewed for presence of inclusive language guidelines for manuscript submissions., Main Measures: Guidelines that included specific examples of inclusive language were defined as "strong." Author instructions were also reviewed for the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, and each journal's publisher and impact factor (IF) were recorded., Key Results: The 100 journals reviewed had an IF range of 3.0-202.7 with a median IF = 19.5 (IQR 11.95, 38.68), and 28 unique publishers were represented. Inclusive language guidance was provided in 23% of medical journals reviewed. Of those, 20 (86.9%) provided strong guidance. Seven journals also recommended use of the SAGER checklist., Conclusion: Significant gaps still exist in ensuring use of inclusive language in medical journals., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Introduction: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work., Aim: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal., Method: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process., Results: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts., Conclusion: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Publications are used widely as a measure of academic quality. Many investigators have difficulty publishing in this competitive field. After coming across a religious lecture on the "Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity", our team adapted this approach to life to the science of publishing: (1) what is the problem of doing it?; (2) there are worse!; (3) everybody does it!; (4) why exaggerate?; (5) I will do it tomorrow!; (6) maybe if …; (7) it is not used anymore!; (8) be a cousin not a brother!; (9) I need to be thanked!; (10) don't eat your own head, let it be!; (11) I can't possibly accomplish it!; (12) I don't feel like doing it!; (13) I am fed up!; (14) I am not worthwhile! These crutches jeopardize good research and thoughtful learned publications., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en., (Copyright © 2021 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Gender disparity exists among authors of the oncology literature., Objective: To quantify trends in authorship by gender within a comprehensive data set of Medline-indexed oncology articles in medical journals with high impact factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medline citations to examine archives of research journals from 3 disciplines in the oncology literature. Authors from all oncology-related articles with Medical Subject Headings terms assigned from 2002 to 2018 from 13 general oncology/medicine, radiation oncology, and surgical journals were included for analysis, encompassing clinical trials, observational studies (excluding case reports), reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and all other published articles. Data were analyzed between April and May 2020., Exposures: Authors were assigned genders based on societal naming norms via third-party gender identification service Gender-API.com. This assignment was internally validated based on manually obtained publicly available data on the internet., Main Outcomes and Measures: Trend in female authorship over time while considering journal type, authorship position, and article type., Results: A total of 420 526 authors from 58 368 articles were found, of which 400 945 were assigned a gender based on their name. In total, 29.5% (95% CI, 29.4%-29.6%) of authors were identified as female, rising from 25.5% (95% CI, 24.7%-26.3%) in 2002 to 31.7% (95% CI, 31.2%-32.3%) in 2018. Each subgroup of primary article type by journal type saw a rise in female authorship over the studied period. For primary articles, last authors were less likely to be women than first authors, regardless of journal type, year, and primary article type (eg, general oncology: odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.69). For general oncology articles, women were less likely to be authors of clinical trials at each authorship position than authors at that respective position for observational studies (first, second, and last authors: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.67; other authors: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89). This difference was not seen for radiation oncology or surgical oncology journals., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that female authorship in oncology research literature has increased. However, there remains a dearth of female senior authors, and the overall rise in female authorship has not kept up with the rise in female oncology faculty.

Objectives: To evaluate the use of P-values and the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Diseases., Materials and Methods: Consecutive articles accepted for publication during the period January 2016 - February 2019 were systematically reviewed. Main goal: descriptive analysis of the citation of P-values and use of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts. Secondary goal: analytic study of: (i) correlations between citation of a P-value and the main characteristics of authors and topics; and (ii) misuse of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" with respect to cited P-values, and correlations with author and topic characteristics., Results: In all, 91 articles were included. P-values and the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" were cited in 35.1%, 41.7%, 10.9% and 0% of Abstracts, respectively. Citing a P-value did not significantly correlate with author or topic characteristics. There were discrepancies between the terms "non-significant", "significant" and "suggestive" and P-values given in the body of the article in 57.1% of Abstracts, with 30.7% overestimation and 25.2% underestimation of results, without significant correlation with author or topic characteristics., Conclusion: Authors, editors and reviewers must pay particular attention to the spin resulting from inappropriate use of the terms "significant", "non-significant" and "suggestive" in Abstracts of articles submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Diseases, to improve the rigor, quality and value of the scientific message delivered to the reader., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Scholarly article writing and publishing in international peer-reviewed journals can become an overwhelming task for many medical, nursing, and healthcare professionals in a university setting, especially in countries whose native language is not English. To help improve their scientific writing skills and publishing capacity, a university-based editing system and writing programs can be developed as educational platforms. These are delivered by a team of specialist editors composed of tenured faculty members who have a strong medical background and extensive experience in teaching courses on medical research, editing, writing, and publishing. For the editing system, the specialist editors provide comprehensive editing, personalized consultation, full editorial support after peer review, guidance with online submissions/resubmissions, and detailed editorial review at different stages of the manuscript writing. In addition, the specialist editors can develop writing programs such as medical writing and editing internships, academic courses in medical writing or research study designs and reporting standards, special interactive lectures and sessions on predatory publishing, seminars on updated editorial guidance of global editorial associations, academic visits on medical writing and editing, medical writing mentoring program, networking programs in scholarly communication, and publication resources in medical writing and scholarly publishing. These editing system and writing programs can serve as integrated platforms for improving scientific writing skills and publishing capacity by providing continuing education in medical writing, editing, publishing, and publication ethics., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background and Purpose: Pharmacy residency training standards require development of medical writing skills. These skills are fundamental to pharmacy clinicians and scholars alike. Despite this requirement, new practitioners and seasoned clinicians frequently struggle with scholarly development and manuscript generation for a variety of reasons, ranging from lack of experience or familiarity with the process of peer-review submission to time constraints., Educational Activity and Setting: We describe a process for fostering pharmacy resident scholarship and publication utilized at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, including the stages of the project development process and corresponding responsibilities during each phase of the manuscript submission process. From identification of interest, to project and manuscript development, review, submission, revision, and reflection, our postgraduate pharmacy residents receive guidance and structure from a preceptor mentor to usher them through this experience for the first time., Findings: The program has had success utilizing this structured approach to supporting residency publication efforts, with the preparation of 23 manuscripts that have resulted in peer-reviewed publications from 28 residents graduating between 2013 and 2017. This results in a resident authorship rate of 82%., Summary: Although medical writing and manuscript development may not be an intuitive process, it is imperative that preceptors and individuals interacting with postgraduate pharmacy trainees consider exposing their trainees to this process, with foresight into thinking about a structured approach to publication at the onset of project development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: English is becoming nowadays the universal language of science. Rresearch published in English can be considered as a bibliometric indicator of the scientific productivity., Aim: We sought to describe the evolution of the Tunisian medical publications written in English over the period from 2004 to 2014., Methods: Medline's database was consulted using a research query associating the names of the country and the main university cities both in French and in English. The articles with a Tunisian health affiliation were retained but the articles of dentistry, pharmacy and non-medical fields were not included., Results: We counted 979 English language Tunisian medical articles published during the three tracer years of the study: 2004, 2009 and 2014. The increase rate was about 38% between 2004 and 2014. The contribution of medical fields in English language publications was important but showed a clear decrease over time. The retrieved articles did not have the same distribution according to the specialties and the institutions. The distribution according to the journals showed that these articles were mainly published by foreign journals with an increasing impact factors between 2004 and 2014., Conclusion: The English language Tunisian medical productivity had shown an important increase over time but many specialties and institutions still not enough implicated in this production.Therefore, increasing research funding, improving the physicians' research methodology and English writing capacities are likely needed to improve the Tunisian medical output.

In this report, the authors analyze the revolutions (journal indexing, structuring of medical writing and reviewing, impact of information technology and transformation of the medical press's business model) that, in a very short space of time, have profoundly affected the world of medical writing, which has now come under the fire of "predatory" journals., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Many scientific manuscripts submitted for publication are limited by fundamental mistakes in their preparation, leading to rejection. We describe how to write a well-organized radiological research manuscript containing all of the important ingredients for effective communication of a hypothesis-driven scientific study in the context of medical imaging., Key Points: • Mistakes in the preparation of scientific manuscripts lead to rejection. • Scientific writing, like any important skill, can be learned. • A well-developed approach will improve the quality of scientific writing. • High-quality scientific writing is essential to communicate research results. • A well-organized manuscript effectively communicates a hypothesis-driven scientific study.

Health professionals often have to write articles for publication in academic journals. Many of them find this difficult and suffer from one or more variations of writer's block. A good way of avoiding these setbacks is to prepare thoroughly for the writing project, and this article proposes eight different questions writers can ask before they start. The first is whether they are in a good position to complete the task, and if not whether they should try to negotiate their way out of the project. If they commit to going ahead, writers should work out where they will find the necessary time, and set deadlines for ensuring that they do. They should also decide on their co-authors, because getting them involved early should make the rewriting more straightforward as well as reducing the danger of ghost authors emerging once the work has been done. Writers should put their research away and reflect on the most appropriate message - a simple sentence that sums up the main implication of the paper. Armed with this message, they can identify a suitable journal for publication - and thereafter can use articles in this journal to guide them on matters of substance and style. If the article is published in that target journal authors can consider that they have written a successful paper.

: This is the fourth and final article in a series to help nurses share their knowledge, skills, and insight through writing for publication. Nurses have something important to contribute no matter what their nursing role. This series will help nurses develop good writing habits and sharpen their writing skills. It will take nurses step by step through the publication process, highlighting what gets published and why, how to submit articles and work with editors, and common pitfalls to avoid. For the previous articles in this series, see http://bit.ly/2lhnYKJ.

Background: Exaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored., Methods and Findings: Using quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature., Conclusions: For health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Rationale and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to assess the potential usefulness of written instructional vignettes relating to publication and journalism ethics in radiology via a survey of radiology trainees., Materials and Methods: A literature review was conducted to guide the development of vignettes, each describing a scenario relating to an ethical issue in research and publication, with subsequent commentary on the underlying ethical issue and potential approaches to its handling. Radiology trainees at a single institution were surveyed regarding the vignettes' perceived usefulness., Results: A total of 21 vignettes were prepared, addressing institutional review board and human subjects protection, authorship issues, usage of previous work, manuscript review, and other miscellaneous topics. Of the solicited trainees, 24.7% (16/65) completed the survey. On average among the vignettes, 94.0% of the participants found the vignette helpful; 19.9 received prior formal instruction on the issue during medical training; 40.0% received prior informal guidance from a research mentor; and 42.0% indicated that the issue had arisen in their own or a peer's prior research experience. The most common previously experienced specific issue was authorship order (93.8%). Free-text responses were largely favorable regarding the value of the vignettes, although also indicated numerous challenges in properly handling the ethical issues: impact of hierarchy, pressure to publish, internal politics, reluctance to conduct sensitive conversations with colleagues, and variability in journal and professional society policies., Conclusion: Radiology trainees overall found the vignettes helpful, addressing commonly encountered topics for which formal and informal guidance were otherwise lacking. The vignettes are publicly available through the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) website and may foster greater insights by investigators into ethical aspects of the publication and journalism process, thus contributing to higher quality radiology research., (Copyright © 2016 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess flaws, rejection rate and reasons for rejection of case reports submitted for publication in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases., Materials and Methods: A prospective analysis of flaws noted in reviewing 118 case reports from 29 countries consecutively submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases during the period Sept. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2015., Results: The most frequent flaws, noted in 74.5% of cases, were: lack of originality (more than 15 such cases previously reported in the medical literature) and lack of new data contributing to the medical literature. Overall, 5% of the cases were accepted for publication, 7% were not resubmitted by the authors, and 88% were rejected. On univariate analysis, none of the variables under analysis correlated with acceptance or rejection of the submitted case. Editorial decision time varied from 1 to 7months (median, 1 month). In 16.3% of the 104 cases of rejection (17/104), the editors suggested resubmission in the section "Letter to the Editor" or "What is your diagnosis?"; 15 of the 17 reports were resubmitted, and 10 (66.6%) were ultimately accepted for publication., Conclusion: The editorial committee of the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases hope that the present data and review of the literature will provide authors with a framework to avoid major errors leading to rejection and will speed publication of the case reports they submit to our columns in the near future., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Objectives: Previously, we identified a 10-year cohort of protocols from applications to the Norwegian Medicines Agency 1998-2007, consisting of 196 drug trials in general practice. The aim of this study was to examine whether trial results were published and whether trial funding and conflicts of interest were reported., Design: Cohort study of trials with systematic searches for published results., Setting: Clinical drug trials in Norwegian general practice., Methods: We performed systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify publications originating from each trial using characteristics such as test drug, comparator and patient groups as search terms. When no publication was identified, we contacted trial sponsors for information regarding trial completion and reference to any publications., Main Outcome Measures: We determined the frequency of publication of trial results and trial characteristics associated with publication of results., Results: Of the 196 trials, 5 were never started. Of the remaining 191 trials, 71% had results published in a journal, 11% had results publicly available elsewhere and 18% of trials had no results available. Publication was more common among trials with an active comparator drug (χ(2) test, p=0.040), with a larger number of patients (total sample size≥median, p=0.010) and with a longer trial period (duration≥median, p=0.025). Trial funding was reported in 85% of publications and increased over time, as did reporting of conflicts of interest among authors. Among the 134 main journal articles from the trials, 60% presented statistically significant results for the investigational drug, and the conclusion of the article was favourable towards the test drug in 78% of papers., Conclusions: We did not identify any journal publication of results for 29% of the general practice drug trials. Trials with an active comparator, larger and longer trials were more likely to be published., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Writing a manuscript on a topic in the medical sciences that gets accepted for publication is not always a guaranteed process. The goal of this article is to provide a description of some key points associated with preparing a manuscript. It has been written primarily for less experienced or aspiring authors, but it addresses points that are important for even well-established authors to consider. Although there may not be a direct path from scientific observation to published work, possessing the desire to publish and persevering throughout the process can ultimately lead to one's findings being both preserved in and contributing to the scientific literature. Although challenging, and at times frustrating, it is a rewarding endeavor.

Objectives: Authors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Design: Cross-sectional study., Study Sample: Primary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123)., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined., Results: The number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5-231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77-193 days))., Conclusions: In this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

The primary objective of educational programs on biomedical writing, editing, and publishing is to nurture ethical skills among local and international researchers and editors from diverse professional backgrounds. The mechanics, essential components, and target outcomes of these programs are described in this article. The mechanics covers the objectives, design, benefits, duration, participants and qualifications, program formats, administrative issues, and mentorship. The essential components consist of three core schedules: Schedule I Basic aspects of biomedical writing, editing, and communications; Schedule II Essential skills in biomedical writing, editing, and publishing; and Schedule III Interactive lectures on relevant topics. The target outcomes of the programs comprise knowledge acquisition, skills development, paper write-up, and journal publication. These programs add to the prestige and academic standing of the host institutions.

Objectives: To evaluate characteristics, suggested modifications and reasons for rejection in scientific articles submitted for publication in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases., Materials and Methods: A prospective study analyzed the flaws noted by reviewers in 52 scientific articles submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between August 31, 2014 and February 28, 2015., Results: Fifteen flaws concerning content and 7 concerning form were identified. In more than 25% of submissions, major flaws were noted: purely descriptive paper; lack of contribution to existing state of knowledge; failure to define a clear study objective and/or analyze the impact of major variables; poorly structured Materials and methods section, lacking description of study population, objective and/or variables; lack of or inappropriate statistical analysis; Introduction verbose and/or misrepresenting the literature; excessively heterogeneous and/or poorly described study population; imprecise discussion, straying from the point, overstating the significance of results and/or introducing new results not mentioned in the Results section; description of the study population placed in the Results section instead of under Materials and methods; serious mistakes of syntax, spelling and/or tense; and failure to follow the Instructions to Authors. After review, 21.1% of articles were published, 65.3% rejected and 13.4% non-resubmitted within 3 months of review. On univariate analysis, the only variable increasing the percentage of articles accepted was the topic not being devoted to head and neck surgery (P=0.03)., Conclusion: These results document the excessive flaw rate still to be found in manuscripts and demonstrate the continuing need for authors to master and implement the rules of scientific medical writing., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.