An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors
- 202 Downloads
Instructions for authors (IFA) need to be informative and regularly updated. We hypothesized that journals with a higher impact factor (IF) have more comprehensive IFA. The aim of the study was to examine whether IFA of journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports 2013, “Medical Laboratory Technology” category, are written in accordance with the latest recommendations and whether the quality of instructions correlates with the journals’ IF. 6 out of 31 journals indexed in “Medical Laboratory Technology” category were excluded (unsuitable or unavailable instructions). The remaining 25 journals were scored based on a set of 41 yes/no questions (score 1/0) and divided into four groups (editorial policy, research ethics, research integrity, manuscript preparation) by three authors independently (max score = 41). We tested the correlation between IF and total score and the difference between scores in separate question groups. The median total score was 26 (21–30) [portion of positive answers 0.63 (0.51–0.73)]. There was no statistically significant correlation between a journal’s IF and the total score (rho = 0.291, P = 0.159). IFA included recommendations concerning research ethics and manuscript preparation more extensively than recommendations concerning editorial policy and research integrity (Ht = 15.91, P = 0.003). Some policies were poorly described (portion of positive answers), for example: procedure for author’s appeal (0.04), editorial submissions (0.08), appointed body for research integrity issues (0.08). The IF of the “Medical Laboratory Technology” journals does not reflect a journals’ compliance to uniform standards. There is a need for improving editorial policies and the policies on research integrity.
KeywordsEditorial policy Impact factor Instruction for authors Publication ethics
- Atlas, M. C. (2003). Emerging ethical issues in instructions to authors in high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(4), 442–449.Google Scholar
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2015.
- Editorial Policy Committee & Council of Science Editors. (2012). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 Update. Council of Science Editors. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/. Accessed January 24, 2015.
- European Association of Science Editors. (2014). EASE guidelines for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/ease_guidelines-june2014-english.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2015.
- Forsman, F. W. (1996). Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organisations? Clinical Chemistry, 42(5), 813–816.Google Scholar
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (updated December 2014). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed January 24, 2015.
- Mathur, V. P., Dhillon, J. K., Kalra, G., Sharma, A., & Mathur, R. (2013). Survey of instructions to authors in Indian and British Dental Journals with respect to ethical guidelines. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, 31(2), 107–112. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.115711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3), 16.Google Scholar
- World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human. World Medical Association. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed February 3, 2015.