-
B – A reviewer index6 September 2013Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer Index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monographs 2013;11(1):274-284(doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.109347) Recognising and rewarding the role of the reviewer is vital. In this article the authors propose a novel idea of Reviewer Index (RI), Reviewer Index Directory (RID) and Global Reviewer Index Directory (GRID), which would strengthen science by focusing […]
-
B – Reporting medical research6 September 2013Simera I, Altman DG. Reporting medical research. The International Journal of Clinical Practice 2013; 67(8):710-716(doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12168) This article provides a brief overview of general principles of reporting medical research studies with a particular focus on the following study designs: randomised controlled trials, analytical observational studies, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The main reporting guidelines, such […]
-
B – Choosing the target journal6 September 2013Gasparyan AY. Choosing the target journal: do authors need a comprehensive approach? Journal of Korean Medical Science 2013;28(8):1117–1119. (doi: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.8.1117) A variety of factors that influence the authors’ choices of the right journal for submission of a manuscript have emerged in the past few years. A prime concern for authors is whether the publication […]
-
B – Use of h-index in chemical research6 September 2013Ciriminna R, Pagliaro M. On the use of the h-index in evaluating chemical research. Chemistry Central Journal 2013;7:132(doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-7-132) Citations in chemistry are meaningful. The h-index alone, however, cannot render the multidimensional complexity of research performance. According to the authors, the best way of measuring performance is to use the informed peer review, where peers […]
-
B – Utility of style guides6 September 2013Joshi Y. Style guides that refuse to go away. Learned Publishing 2013;26(2):133-134(doi: 10.1087/20130210) The article discusses the relevance and utility of the minutiae that style guides and specifications insist on in restructuring submitted manuscripts for publication. The author believes that the difficulty at finding any ergonic justification for selecting among recommended style has affirmed the necessity […]
-
B – Visibility of retractions6 September 2013Decullier E. Huot L, Samson G, et al. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Research Notes 2013;6:238(doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-238) Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has established guidelines on dealing with retractions in 2009, recommending that they should be issued in […]
-
B – Duplicate systematic reviews5 September 2013Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ 2013;347:f5040(doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5040) Two or three systematic reviews on the same topic are usually considered reasonable. But, when does replication become unnecessary duplication? The best way to reduce unnecessary duplication of systematic reviews may be to make it compulsory for reviewers to identify existing reviews, either protocols […]
-
B – Citation and IF distributions of scientific journals5 September 2013Sangwal K. Citation and impact factor distributions of scientific journals published in individual countries. Journal of Informetrics 2013;7(2):487-504 (doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.011) Citation distribution of journals published in individual countries is a subject which has not been investigated so far. The aim of the paper is three-fold: (1) to analyze of the distribution of citations, two- and […]
-
B – Impact factor for journal scientometrics5 September 2013Guraya SY. Bandwagon of Impact Factor for journal scientometrics. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 2013 April 25(doi: 10.1016/j.tumed.2013.04.001)This article describes the merits and demerits of the Impact Factor (IF) with details of misapplication and manipulation techniques. The IF cannot assess the quality of individual articles. For the evaluation of individual researchers, author-focused metrics, such as […]
-
B – Reconsidering the Declaration of Helsinki5 September 2013Emanuel EJ. Reconsidering the Declaration of Helsinki. The Lancet 2013;381(9877):1532-1533 (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60970-8) The World Medical Association is developing its eighth version of the Declaration of Helsinki for the next year 50th anniversary. It should establish universal, minimum standards without which research on human beings is unethical. The next revision is a perfect moment to reassess this […]
-
B – The Lancet journals new OA policy5 September 2013The Lancet Editors. The Lancet journals welcome a new open access policy. The Lancet 2013;381(9873):1166-1167 (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60720-5) The Lancet journals welcome and support all efforts to make research more widely accessible and useable. They offer, in accordance with the new Research Councils UK (RCUK) policy, either a gold or a green open access choice. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60720-5/fulltext
-
B – Quality of reports on RCT’s in Iranian journals29 July 2013Nojomi M, Ramezani M, Ghafari-Anvar A. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials published in Iranian journals: application of the new version of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Archives of Iranian Medicine 2013;16(1):20-22 The objective of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria is to provide a guideline for authors to improve the reporting […]
