• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Pediatrics >Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions
【24h】

Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions

机译：儿科开放获取期刊是否在推广良好的出版习惯？作者说明分析

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Several studies analyzed whether conventional journals in general medicine or specialties such as pediatrics endorse recommendations aiming to improve publication practice. Despite evidence showing benefits of these recommendations, the proportion of endorsing journals has been moderate to low and varied considerably for different recommendations. About half of pediatric journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) but only about a quarter recommended registration of trials. We aimed to investigate to what extent pediatric open-access (OA) journals endorse these recommendations. We hypothesized that a high proportion of these journals have adopted recommendations on good publication practice since OA electronic publishing has been associated with a number of editorial innovations aiming at improved access and transparency. Methods We identified 41 journals publishing original research in the subject category "Health Sciences, Medicine (General), Pediatrics" of the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org webcite . From the journals' online author instructions we extracted information regarding endorsement of four domains of editorial policy: the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, trial registration, disclosure of conflicts of interest and five major reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Two investigators collected data independently. Results The Uniform Requirements were mentioned by 27 (66%) pediatric OA journals. Thirteen (32%) required or recommended trial registration prior to publication of a trial report. Conflict of interest policies were stated by 25 journals (61%). Advice about reporting guidelines was less frequent: CONSORT was referred to by 12 journals (29%) followed by other reporting guidelines (MOOSE, PRISMA or STARD) (8 journals, 20%) and STROBE (3 journals, 7%). The EQUATOR network, a platform of several guideline initiatives, was acknowledged by 4 journals (10%). Journals published by OA publishing houses gave more guidance than journals published by professional societies or other publishers. Conclusions Pediatric OA journals mentioned certain recommendations such as the Uniform Requirements or trial registration more frequently than conventional journals; however, endorsement is still only moderate. Further research should confirm these exploratory findings in other medical fields and should clarify what the motivations and barriers are in implementing such policies.
机译：背景几项研究分析了常规医学领域的常规杂志还是儿科等专业杂志认可旨在改善出版实践的建议。尽管有证据表明这些建议的好处，但背书期刊的比例却是中等到较低，并且对于不同的建议而言差异很大。在《期刊引证报告》中检索的儿科期刊中，大约有一半引用了国际医学期刊编辑委员会（ICMJE）的《手稿统一要求》，但只有大约四分之一建议进行试验注册。我们旨在调查儿科开放获取（OA）期刊在多大程度上认可这些建议。我们假设，由于OA电子出版已与许多旨在改善获取和提高透明度的编辑创新相关联，因此这些期刊中的很大一部分已采纳了有关良好出版实践的建议。方法我们在开放获取期刊目录http://www.doaj.org webcite中确定了41篇发表原始研究的期刊，其主题类别为“健康科学，医学（普通），儿科”。从这些期刊的在线作者说明中，我们提取了有关以下四个政策领域的认可信息：《手稿的统一要求》，《审判注册》，《利益冲突的披露》和五项主要报告指南，例如《 CONSORT（报告试验的合并标准）》声明。两名调查员独立收集数据。结果27篇（66％）儿科OA期刊提到了统一要求。在发布试验报告之前，有十三（32％）个需要或建议进行试验注册。有25家期刊（61％）声明了利益冲突政策。关于报告指南的建议较少：CONSORT被12种期刊（29％）引用，其次是其他报告指南（MOOSE，PRISMA或STARD）（8种期刊，20％）和STROBE（3种期刊，7％）。 EQUATOR网络是一个包含多个指导性计划的平台，得到了4种期刊（占10％）的认可。 OA出版社出版的期刊比专业社团或其他出版商出版的期刊提供了更多的指导。结论小儿科OA期刊比常规期刊更频繁地提及某些建议，例如统一要求或试验注册。但是，认可仍然是温和的。进一步的研究应确认其他医学领域的这些探索性发现，并应阐明实施此类政策的动机和障碍。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号