Gestión de un artículo científico. ¿Cómo llega lo que leemos a las revistas médicas? / Scientific paper management. How do articles get published in medical journals?

El ciclo que cumple un manuscrito desde su escritura hasta su publicación no se enseña, habitualmente, durante la formación del profesional de salud. En este artículo, se repasa el proceso desde la decisión de comunicar de los autores hasta su eventual publicación, detallando las cuestiones prácticas para considerar en cada paso. Se especifican las responsabilidades de los distintos roles implicados: autor, editor y revisor. Se presentan también las guías internacionales de apoyo para la escritura de artículos médico-científicos

The life-cycle of a manuscript from writing to publication is not usually taught during health care professionals' training. This article reviews the process that goes from from the authors' decision to communicate to its eventual publication, detailing practical aspects to be considered in each step. The responsibilities of the different roles involved are specified: author, editor, and reviewer. International guidelines supporting the writing of medical-scientific papers are also described.

Bases para la implementación de la ciencia abierta / Basis for the implementation of open science

RESUMEN Introducción: La comunicación científica exige nuevos estándares que permitan una difusión rápida de los resultados científicos; lo cual adquiere gran connotación en las Ciencias de la Salud. Objetivo: Describir las bases para la implementación de la ciencia abierta. Método: Se desarrolló una revisión bibliográfica en las bases de datos Scopus, SciELO, Pubmed y RedALyC, citándose 27 artículos. Se emplearon fórmulas de búsqueda obtenidas por la combinación de descriptores y los operadores OR y AND. Resultados: La ciencia abierta permite mejor velocidad de difusión y posicionamiento de la producción científica, evaluar la fiabilidad de los estudios y detectar conflictos de intereses. Es necesario el trabajo en materia de infraestructura para la publicación y manipulación de los datos de investigación, así como en políticas que delimiten su uso. La ciencia abierta no cambia la motivación y objetivos de la investigación, sino el cómo hacer ciencia y difundirla. Conclusiones: La ciencia abierta se sustenta el acceso libre y sin restricciones a la información, permitiendo el acceso abierto a los códigos, a los datos, a las publicaciones, así como procesos de evaluación abierta.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Scientific communication requires new standards that allows a quick diffusion of scientific results, acquiring an eminent important in the Health Sciences. Objective: Describe the basis for the implementation of open Science. Method: A bibliographic review was developed in Scopus, SciELO, Pubmed and RedALyC databases, citing 27 articles. Search formulas obtained by the combination of descriptors and the OR and AND operators were used. Results: Open science allows a quick diffusion and good positioning of scientific production, evaluation of the reliability of studies and to detect conflicts of interest. A good infrastructure is needed for the scientific publications and to manipulate all research data, as well as policies to limit their use. Open science does not change the motivation and objectives of research, but rather how science is done and how disseminated. Conclusions: Open science is based on free and unrestricted access to information, allowing open access to codes, data, publications, as well as open evaluation processes.

Review of research designs and statistical methods employed in dental postgraduate dissertations.

Context: There is a need to evaluate the quality of postgraduate dissertations of dentistry submitted to university in the light of the international standards of reporting. Aims: We conducted the review with an objective to document the use of sampling methods, measurement standardization, blinding, methods to eliminate bias, appropriate use of statistical tests, appropriate use of data presentation in postgraduate dental research and suggest and recommend modifications. Settings and Design: The public access database of the dissertations from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences was reviewed. Subjects and Methods: Three hundred and thirty‑three eligible dissertations underwent preliminary evaluation followed by detailed evaluation of 10% of randomly selected dissertations. The dissertations were assessed based on international reporting guidelines such as strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE), consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT), and other scholarly resources. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were compiled using MS Excel and SPSS 10.0. Numbers and percentages were used for describing the data. Results: The “in vitro” studies were the most common type of research (39%), followed by observational (32%) and experimental studies (29%). The disciplines conservative dentistry (92%) and prosthodontics (75%) reported high numbers of in vitro research. Disciplines oral surgery (80%) and periodontics (67%) had conducted experimental studies as a major share of their research. Lacunae in the studies included observational studies not following random sampling (70%), experimental studies not following random allocation (75%), not mentioning about blinding, confounding variables and calibrations in measurements, misrepresenting the data by inappropriate data presentation, errors in reporting probability values and not reporting confidence intervals. Few studies showed grossly inappropriate choice of statistical tests and many studies needed additional tests. Conclusions: Overall observations indicated the need to comply with standard guidelines of reporting research.