ABSTRACT
Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.
Subject(s)
Publishing/standards , Authorship/standards , Journalism, Medical/standards , Publishing/ethics , Writing/standards , Manuscripts, Medical as TopicABSTRACT
Neste artigo, analisamos como os casos de microcefalia no Brasil foram noticiados como uma epidemia. As notícias surgiram como alertas e buscaram explicações para o problema, além de discutirem eventuais soluções. A partir do conceito de saber médico e da delimitação de características do jornalismo especializado em saúde, observamos como o conhecimento produzido pelo jornalismo é útil para a disseminação e fortalecimento desse sistema. A cobertura mostrou como os conceitos de biopolítica e governamentalidade ganham dimensões próprias ao enxergarmos o jornalismo especializado em saúde como dispositivo e tecnologia de poder.
In this article, we analyze how cases of microcephaly in Brazil were reported as an epidemic. The news have came as alerts and sought explanations for the problem, as well as they have discussed possible solutions. From the concept of medical knowledge and from the delimitation of characteristics of health news, weobserve how the knowledge produced by journalism is useful for the dissemination and strengthening of this system. The coverage showed how the concepts of biopolitics and governmentality gain their own dimensions when we understand health news as a device and technology of power.
En este artículo, se analiza cómo se registraron los casos de microcefalia en Brasil como una epidemia.Las noticias surgieron como alertas y buscaron explicaciones para el problema, y tambien discutieron posibles soluciones. Desde el concepto de conocimiento médico y de la delimitación de las características de periodismo especializado en salud, observamos cómo el conocimiento producido por el periodismo es útil para la difusión y fortalecimiento de este sistema. La cobertura mostró cómo los conceptos de biopolítica y gubernamentalidad ganan dimensiones propias cuando vemos el periodismo especializado en salud como dispositivo y tecnología de poder.
Subject(s)
Information Dissemination/methods , Health Communication , Journalism, Medical/standards , Microcephaly , Brazil , Narration , Public HealthABSTRACT
Peer review process is widely used to assess the quality of scientific research and select papers for publication in biomedical journals. The method lacks standardization and objectivity. To standardize the peer review process, evaluation and rating of the performance of individual peer reviewers using a sham paper is suggested. The present study of 7 reviewers revealed ratings ranging from 0.34 (SD 0.33) to 0.45 (SD 0.5), widely differing from the set standard (ideal 0). This indicates less than optimal performance by the peer reviewers. Feedback to the peer reviewers might help in improving the standards.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as Topic , Humans , India , Journalism, Medical/standards , Peer Review/standards , Research/standards , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Original articles published in scientific jounals are important parameters for committees when they evaluate academic promotions or researcb grant applications. The analysis usually tries to give each paper a qualitative/quantitative assessment. An article's citation by other is accepted as a fair estimate of the value assigned to its originality and importance. A main determinant of every citation index is the international relevance attained by the journal where the article appeared. The "impact factor" of journals enlisted in tbe mainstream literature, as defined by tbe Journal Citation Reports (ISI), is being used by many assessors worldwide. But this index appears to be an unfair unit of measurement for journals that, although included in the main international data bases, are published in non English languages. Furthermore, some local journals that are not enlisted by the Institute for Scientific Information apply external peer review to select their publications. In contrast, those same journals may have great relevance for their contributing authors and a high impact in tbeir readers. The Editor's proposal is to classify original articles published in biomedical sciences, clinical medicine and public health topics using a three steps scale: a low score to articles published in local journals that use the peer review system, even though they were not enlisted in International data bases; a higher score to articles published in journals included in the mainstream literature, without considering their "impact factor" as differential values; and the highest score to articles published in journals recognized as international readers in biomedicine, general medicine or in the subspecialties. Therefore, mainstream journals published in non-Englisb languages would not be discriminated from other journals having higher "impact factors' mainly due to their use of the English language
Subject(s)
Humans , Journalism, Medical/standards , Periodical , Publishing/standards , Peer Review, Research/standards , Education, Medical/trends , /standardsABSTRACT
Instructions to authors of manuscripts to be submitted to this journal are published in the Junuary and July issue. These instructions consider the scope of the journal, the experience acquired along two decades applying the peer review system, and the most recent edition (Junary 1997) of the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journal". All articles are published in Spanish but each one starts with an abstract in English. The most common errors detected in formal presentation or in contents are briefly reminded in these instructions. A free translation of paragraphs chosen from the "Uniform Requirements..." allows the editors to emphasize some statements added to (or expanded in) this document: "Redundant or duplicate publication" and "Protection of patients' rights". Authors are requested to study the "Uniform Requirements..." and the specific "Instructions to the Authors" when preparing their manuscripts for submission to this journal
Subject(s)
Humans , Authorship , Journalism, Medical/standards , Periodical/standards , Patient Advocacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Education, Medical/methods , Manuscript, Medical , Duplicate PublicationABSTRACT
Medical journal editing is a task with many facets. The role of the editors includes organizing and evatuating a peer-review system as a main tool for their decission making in selecting manuscripts to be published. The International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications was held in September, 1997, in Prague, Czech Republic, organized by JAMA, the BMJ and Project HOPE, and sponsored by several other organizations. A meeting áof the World Association of Medical Editors took place during this Congress and its institutional objectives and membership were discussed and enlarged, based on the previous foundation Conference held in Bellagio, Italy, in march 1995. The main goals of this Association: "To facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed medical journals; to improve editorial standards, to promote professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism and self-regulation; and to encourage research on the principles and practices of medical editing" were accomplished in a warm and friendly atmosphere, with over 300 participants from 46 countries and every continent. Revista Medica de Chile was represented in these meetings by its former and present Editors. An analysis of the meetings by the editorial team will lead to changes intended to improve the editorial process in our journal