Document Detail


Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  14968189     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: Medical journal editors play an important role in optimizing research publication. This study evaluates the views of Iranian medical journal editors, and their knowledge of medical publication standards. METHODS: In May 2001, 51 editors from all journals approved by the Ministry of Health were invited to participate, 27 of whom completed the study. A self-administered questionnaire, based on the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URMS) was used which consisted of 28 questions in 9 subject fields. These fields included: peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship criteria, publication ethics, duplicate publication, mass media, advertising, competing manuscripts, and the Internet. The knowledge of the editors was assessed by a scoring system, with a range of -46 to +44 points. RESULTS: Twenty-three of the participants were editors-in-chief and 4 were managing editors. Their average age was 47.3 +/- 8.7 years and 25 were male. All journals were peer-reviewed, most having 2 or 3 reviewers for each manuscript. Of the journals, 92.6% accepted or rejected an article on the basis of the views of most reviewers and 52%, sometimes or always, used a statistician as a reviewer. Most of the editors believed that writing the first draft and designing the study are authorship criteria, and most of them believed that these 2 are stated in URMS. Seven journals (25.9%) never published advertisements. Among journals that sold advertisements, the most popular policy (85%) was the rejection of advertisements because they advertised harmful products. Out of 27 journals, 12 were accessible on the Internet, and 7 had independent websites. Of the editors, 81.5% thought that a website is useful for their journal. The average knowledge score of the editors was 6.5 +/- 7.5. None had a negative score, 33% scored zero, 45% obtained average scores and 22% obtained good scores. CONCLUSION: The results show that peer review is favored by all the editors studied, though it seems that journals do not follow clear-cut policies in this regard. Most of the editors, agreed with the statements of URMS to some extent and generally most have average to high knowledge of URMS.
Authors:
Arash Etemadi; Farbod Raiszadeh; Farshid Alaeddini; Fereidoun Azizi
Related Documents :
6703549 - Authorship and other credits.
2194999 - Coverage of sixty core veterinary medical journals by ten indexing and abstracting tools.
1859779 - Radiology of the pancreas.
1842459 - Treatment of noise induced hearing loss.
11050709 - Medical illustration. the impact of photography on its history.
16283899 - Arguing about the evidence: readers, writers and inscription devices in coronary heart ...
13805019 - Radiation facts for public health officers.
10311669 - Waste disposal: macerator or disinfector--notes for calculating revenue comparisons and...
17040019 - Evolution of medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Saudi medical journal     Volume:  25     ISSN:  0379-5284     ISO Abbreviation:  Saudi Med J     Publication Date:  2004 Jan 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2004-02-17     Completed Date:  2007-09-10     Revised Date:  2008-06-23    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7909441     Medline TA:  Saudi Med J     Country:  Saudi Arabia    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  S29-33     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Endocrine Research Center and the International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Advertising as Topic / statistics & numerical data
Authorship
Conflict of Interest
Duplicate Publication as Topic
Editorial Policies*
Female
Humans
Iran
Male
Middle Aged
Peer Review, Research / methods
Periodicals as Topic / statistics & numerical data*
Quality Control
Scientific Misconduct / statistics & numerical data

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


Previous Document:  Translating medical journals into Arabic. JAMA Middle East as an example.
Next Document:  The cytokine TNF-alpha. Genetics and suitability for prenatal risks assessment.