Document Detail

Changing expectations: Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20951447     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
"Yes" to both questions. I believe that journals can, should, and do drive methodological changes. However, it is not a unilateral responsibility; authors and teachers also must be drivers of improvements. There are multiple ways that journals drive change: Journals promote new concepts and methods in study design and data analysis by publishing them-giving the new methodologies voice and credibility after peer review. Journals further promote new methodologies by asking authors to adhere to the newest appropriate best methods (relying heavily on advice from reviewers). Journals enforce methodological quality standards through their review processes and by asking authors to adhere to recognized, published guidelines for the information that should be included in manuscripts. I summarized what I consider to be the key features of 15 of the statements of guidelines. Now that good guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, PRISMA, REFLECT-LFS) are available on so many topics, I recommend that we require these as minimum reporting standards so that the information content of papers is forced to be high. The guidelines should make is easier for reviewers and editors to make sure nothing was overlooked in the review process, and make it easier for authors to see the minimum standards and their justifications. It should be a positively reinforcing system. Authors develop these new concepts and methods, use the guidelines, and cooperate in good faith with the journals to which their manuscripts are submitted. Some authors also become reviewers and further contribute to the process. Good teachers offer the next academic generations both the best current concepts and practices and the understanding that improvements will come along and must be considered for adoption. I made six recommendations regarding reporting guidelines.
Hollis N Erb
Related Documents :
2752227 - Parallel process at case conferences.
11777357 - Jacob's disease: report of two cases and review of the literature.
2053657 - How blind is blind review?
18069857 - Recent reviews.
21540867 - An update on penile reconstruction.
15643417 - Radiolucent lesion of an unerupted mandibular molar.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2010-10-15
Journal Detail:
Title:  Preventive veterinary medicine     Volume:  97     ISSN:  1873-1716     ISO Abbreviation:  Prev. Vet. Med.     Publication Date:  2010 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-11-24     Completed Date:  2011-01-11     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8217463     Medline TA:  Prev Vet Med     Country:  Netherlands    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  165-74     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Department of Population Medicine & Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical*
Editorial Policies
Evidence-Based Medicine
Peer Review
Periodicals as Topic / standards*
Practice Guidelines as Topic*
Publishing / standards*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / standards
Research Design / standards
Veterinary Medicine / standards*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Research into the therapeutic roles of two-pore-domain potassium channels.
Next Document:  Reporting guidelines for primary research: Saying what you did.