Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?
Methods and Results
We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009.
Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.
European Regulation 1924/2006 states that all health claims made on foods need to be substantiated scientifically.
To apply the PASSCLAIM criteria for the scientific substantiation of health claims on foods to herbal supplements containing Ginkgo biloba. Evaluation of three selected claimed health effects for G. biloba (improvement of blood circulation, improvement of symptoms of old age, and improvement of memory) was achieved through review of publicly available scientific data. A total of 35 human intervention studies were evaluated. Commercially available products claimed to contain mainly G. biloba (N=29) were randomly sampled in the Netherlands and analyzed for their content on ginkgo extract. Also, a toxicological risk assessment was performed.
The three selected health claims investigated could not be substantiated. This was mainly because of a lack of data from studies in healthy volunteers. In most studies results performed with a 24% standardized G. biloba extract were described. However, our chemical analysis showed that 25 of the 29 sampled products did not contain the required minimum 24% standardized extract. Moreover, in most preparations the content of substances typical for G. biloba did not conform to what was declared on the label. Since toxicity data for G. biloba are very limited, a safety limit could not be established.
Evidence is lacking for three health claims of herbal products with G. biloba. Neither safety nor efficacy can be guaranteed at the recommended daily dose. The multidisciplinary approach described in this paper provides good insight into issues that are relevant for the evaluation of health claims for herbal food supplements.
Ginkgo biloba; health claims; substantiation; botanicals; content; safety
The purpose of this investigation was to produce a title list of current journals supplying upwards of 75 percent of demand at the Columbia and Yale Medical Libraries. Columbia received nearly 2,000 journals and Yale over 1,500; findings are based upon an analysis of canceled charge slips for issues published from 1959 through June 1962. This combined study of recorded usage for six months in the Columbia Medical Library (12.9 percent of circulation during January through June 1962) and for one year in the Yale Medical Library (12.5 percent of 1961/62 circulation) revealed that a core of 262 journals supplied 80 percent of use of titles published in the 1959 to mid-1962 period. However, it is probable that current issues of all titles received were used at least once within the libraries. Titles of sixty-seven journals which supplied slightly more than 50 percent of use are listed.
The Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) is a bimonthly scientific journal, publishing mostly original articles. It is indexed in the Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, and the Science Citation Index – expanded.
Since the CMJ’s 15th anniversary in 2007, our aim has been to assess the importance of the journal through its impact factor (IF) and immediacy index, with a particular focus placed on the proportion of self-citations.
According the Web of Knowledge database, the current official IF for CMJ is 0.825, ranking it at the 62nd place out of 103 journals within the Thomson Scientific category “Medicine – General and Internal.” The exclusion of self-citations resulted in a small decrease in the journal’s rank – to 66th place.
According to the Web of Science database, the predicted CMJ IF in 2007 is between 1.024 and 1.125, showing a clear increase. The immediacy index of the CMJ is continuously low, with a high contribution of self-citations, implying that articles published in the CMJ require more time to be cited, and that their topics are of particular interest to the journal's readers and contributors.
Self-citations contributed significantly to the IF in the first few years after the journal was established. The proportion of independent citations progressively increased, and of all the citations included in the IF in 2007, almost 70% were fully independent. Some of these citations were from articles published in journals with IF higher than 5.
Taken together, our data suggest that CMJ has significantly improved its citation data during the last 15 years, confirming that a quality-oriented editorial policy in a small peripheral journal may result in a truly increased international visibility.
Clinicians and researchers use the medical literature in a variety of ways. The overwhelming volume of clinical journals necessitates tools to help healthcare professionals identify and employ relevant information. The structured abstract can facilitate browsing articles, but may not contain appropriate types of information or sufficient detail for all uses of the medical literature. We have created customized views of journal articles that provide information for specific research or clinical tasks, such as evaluating the scientific validity of a clinical trial. These summaries are called extracts because we literally extract information of a particular type from the full text of an article. We employ a context-based indexing scheme, previously designed for improving precision in literature searches, to automatically generate extracts from clinical research articles. In this paper, we present an evaluation of the content and utility of these task-specific extracts. Our results provide preliminary evidence that such extracts contain information that is relevant to clinical and research tasks and may facilitate understanding and use of the medical literature.
Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as ‘secondary research’ and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.
We identified the 118 journals labelled as “core clinical journals” by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals’ editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.
The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as “Review” or “Feature article”. Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.
Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of ‘original research’ in the context of SRs is warranted.
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is an Open Access, online, electronic journal published by BioMed Central with full contents available to the scientific and medical community free of charge to all readers. Authors maintain the copyright to their own work, a policy facilitating dissemination of data to the widest possible audience without requiring permission from the publisher. This Open Access publishing model is subsidized by authors (or their institutions/funding agencies) in the form of a single £330 article processing charge (APC), due at the time of manuscript acceptance for publication. Payment of the APC is not a condition for formal peer review and does not apply to articles rejected after review. Additionally, this fee is waived for authors whose institutions are BioMed Central members or where genuine financial hardship exists. Considering ordinary publication fees related to page charges and reprints, the APC at Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is comparable to costs associated with publishing in some traditional print journals, and is less expensive than many. Implementation of the APC within this Open Access framework is envisioned as a modern research-friendly policy that supports networking among investigators, brings new research into reach rapidly, and empowers authors with greater control over their own scholarly publications.
One hundred years ago, in 1909, the American Society for Clinical Investigation
(ASCI) held its first annual meeting. The founding members based this new society on
a revolutionary approach to research that emphasized newer physiological methods. In
1924 the ASCI started a new journal, the Journal of Clinical
Investigation. The ASCI has also held an annual meeting almost every year.
The society has long debated who could be a member, with discussions about whether
members must be physicians, what sorts of research they could do, and the role of
women within the society. The ASCI has also grappled with what else the society
should do, especially whether it ought to take a stand on policy issues. ASCI history
has reflected changing social, political, and economic contexts, including several
wars, concerns about the ethics of biomedical research, massive increases in federal
research funding, and an increasingly large and specialized medical environment.
A small group of members of the American Society for Clinical Investigation began chatting in 1916 about the possibility of launching a new biomedical research journal. By October 1924, they managed to make the idea a reality with the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Our 80th birthday seems an appropriate time to reflect on the history of biomedical science as it has been played out on our pages.
In 1924 the London Committee of the Medical Women’s Federation was instrumental in establishing a clinic for the purpose of investigating the radium treatment of cervical cancer. The scheme was later to evolve into a hospital, the Marie Curie, where adherence to the methods developed in Stockholm served to establish radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery in cancer of the cervix. This article examines the women’s contribution in the light of feminist and professional struggles over the relative merits of surgery and radiotherapy. It argues that radiotherapy was an issue of special interest to women surgeons, not only because of the long history of feminist opposition to gynecological surgery, but also because it could widen women’s access to the medical profession in the face of male exclusion from training posts and honorary appointments at voluntary hospitals.
radiotherapy; radical abdominal hysterectomy; women surgeons; cervical cancer; Marie Curie Hospital
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is an open access, online, peer-review journal publishing papers on all aspects of research into reproductive endocrinology, infertility, bioethics and the advanced reproductive technologies. The journal reports on important developments impacting the field of human reproductive medicine and surgery. The field exists as a sub-specialty of obstetrics & gynecology, focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of complex human reproductive problems. The continued growth of this relatively new field depends on quality research by proven scientists as well as junior investigators who, together, make contributions to this area of medical and surgical practice. The publishing revolution made possible by internet technology presages a bright future for continued interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers. Against this background, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction exists for the scientific community to facilitate this scholarly dialogue.
publishing; reproductive medicine; internet; research; trends
We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal.
We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies.
We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors.
Although many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals.
In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.
Results and Discussion:
Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.
medical science; biomedical journals; ethics; authorship; acknowledgement; conflict of interest; copyright; plagiarism; duplicate publication.
Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users – people and machines – of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.
The Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration was created to provide, for the first time, a unified forum to consider all factors that affect scientific practice and scientific discovery – with an emphasis on the changing face of contemporary biomedical science. In this endeavor we are bringing together three different groups of scholars: a) laboratory investigators, who make the discoveries that are the currency of the scientific enterprise; b) computer science and informatics investigators, who devise tools for data analysis, mining, visualization and integration; and c) social scientists, including sociologists, historians, and philosophers, who study scientific practice, collaboration, and information needs. We will publish original research articles, case studies, focus pieces, reviews, and software articles. All articles in the Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration will be peer reviewed, published immediately upon acceptance, freely available online via open access, and archived in PubMed Central and other international full-text repositories.
European Society of Cardiology (ESC) National Society Cardiovascular Journals (NSCJs) are high-quality biomedical journals focused on cardiovascular diseases. The Editors’ Network of the ESC devises editorial initiatives aimed at improving the scientific quality and diffusion of NSCJ. In this article we will discuss on the importance of the Internet, electronic editions and open access strategies on scientific publishing. Finally, we will propose a new editorial initiative based on a novel electronic tool on the ESC web-page that may further help to increase the dissemination of contents and visibility of NSCJs.
Biomedical journal; Editors network; Open access; Internet; Electronic editions
The Journal of Family and Community Medicine (JFCM) is the official peer reviewed scientific publication of the Saudi Society of Family and Community Medicine. Unlike many peer medical journals, the contents of JFCM, have never been analyzed. The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the contents of the JFCM over a 16-year period to discern the study designs and statistical methods used with a view to improving future contents of the journal.
Materials and Methods:
All volumes of the JFCM, from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2010 were hand searched for research articles. All papers identified as original articles were selected. For every article, the study designs and the statistical methods used were recorded. Articles were then classified according to their statistical methods and study designs. The frequency of study designs was calculated as a simple percentage of the total number of articles, while the frequency of statistical methods was calculated as a percentage of articles that used those statistical methods.
A total of 229 articles were analyzed. Of these, 66 (28.8%) either reported no statistics or reported simple summaries. The cross-sectional design was used in 175 (76.4%) of all analyzed articles. Statistical methods were used in 163 (71.2%) articles. Chi-squared test was used in 111 (68.1%) articles, and t-test used in 48 (29.4%) articles. Other common statistical tests were: Regression, which was used in 35 (21.5%) articles, ANOVA used in 23 (14.1%) articles, and odds ratio and relative risk tests which were used in 22 (13.5%) articles.
The JFCM has a wide range of study designs and statistical methods. However, no article on experimental studies has been published in the JFCM since its inception.
Community medicine; family medicine; research methodology; Saudi Arabia
The Nutrition and Health Claim Regulation 1924/2006/EC, together with EFSA guidances on the scientific requirements for different type of health claims, is setting the basis for health claim substantiation in the EU.
The aim of this presentation is to bring up the key challenges that the food industry and clinical research organizations are facing when meeting these requirements.
Results and discussion
Key issues in clinical research planning to meet the requirements set for the health claim substantiation are: (1) Selection of right outcome markers since the selection of outcome marker defines actually the formulation of the health claim to be used on food or food ingredient. (2) Selection of right target population since that determines the target consumer group for the food with a health claim. (3) Selection of dose regime and food matrices used since these largely determine the conditions set for the use of the health claim. One of the major challenges in health claim substantiation is the deviant approach to risk factors or biomarkers. From the regulation point of view, a single risk factor approach is emphasized, but from the clinical and scientific point of view the pattern of different risk markers or biomarkers could, in some cases, be a more relevant choice to reflect the final health outcome. This is especially the case in the nutrition and health area because we are often dealing with weak but multiple health effects of certain food items or ingredients. Also the lack of validated well-established biomarkers potent to be affected by diet is a challenge in health claim substantiation.
The selection of right target population is often a compromise between choosing a more potential target group to obtain efficacy (i.e. risk factors elevated vs. patient groups) and choosing a rationale to generalize the results to wider population (target consumer) group.
The selection of optimal dosing regime and matrices for a clinical study is partly dependent on previous scientific data on the dose response, if existing. But equally important is the choice of feasible doses from product formulation and food consumption point of view.
With careful analysis of the existing data, advance planning and clinical research strategy it is possible to build up a health claim substantiation that meets the requirements both of Nutrition and Health Claim Regulation and EFSA.
Fielding H. Garrison's paper "The medical periodical and the scientific society" cited the Buffalo Medical Journal in the company of eminent periodicals published in Berlin, Boston, and Edinburgh. This article provides an overview of the Journal and places it in context of 19th-century medical journalism. The Journal is assessed in terms of original scientific contributions and as a source of social and local history.
Breast reconstruction refers to the rebuilding of a woman's breast using autologous tissue or prosthetic material to form a natural-looking breast. It is increasingly offered to women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. However, there is no systematic analysis available for the expanding area of research on breast reconstruction.
A bibliometric method was used to obtain a view of the scientific production about breast reconstruction by data extracted from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Specific parameters were retrieved from the ISI. Articles about breast reconstruction were analyzed to obtain a view of the topic's structure, history, and document relationships using HistCite software. Trends in the most influential publications and authors were analyzed.
The number of articles was constantly increasing. Most highly cited articles described the methods of flap construction in the surgery. Other highly cited articles discussed the psychological or emotional aspects of breast reconstruction, skin sparing mastectomy, and breast reconstruction in the irradiated breast.
This was the first breast reconstruction scientometric analysis, representing the characteristics of papers and the trends of scientific production. A constant increase in the number of breast reconstruction papers and also the increasing number of citations shows that there is an increasing interest in this area of medical science. It seems that most of the research in this field is focused on the technical aspects of surgery.
Mammaplasty; Bibliometrics; Historiography
Despite various weaknesses, the impact factor (IF) is still used as an important indictor for scientific quality in specific subject categories. In the current study, the IFs of rheumatology journals over the past 10 years were serially analyzed and compared with that from other fields. For the past 10 years (1999–2008), the IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information in the Science Citation Index—Journal Citation Report were analyzed. For the majority of rheumatology journals, the IF shows a gradually increasing trend. The mean and median level of increase of IF from 1999 to 2008 is 233.9 and 66.5%, respectively. The increase in IF from 1999 or the first year with IF documentation to that in 2008 was higher for European journals than for the USA journals. The aggregate IF and the median IF of rheumatology journals remained within the top 30% and top 15% in clinical medical and all the scientific categories, respectively. Over the past 10 years, rheumatology journals showed a general increase in IF and rheumatology remained a leading discipline. For journals in the English language, those from Europe had an even higher increase than those from USA.
Impact factor; Rheumatology; Journals; Clinical medicine
Some aspects of the performance of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) are described on the occasion of the journal's 25th anniversary. Comparative circulation data are presented. JABA's influence on the scientific community is measured by examining the citation history of articles that it has published, with attention to both frequency and source of the citations. The influence that other journals have on JABA's authors is assessed through an analysis of citations made by those authors in this journal's reference lists. The citation history indicates clearly that JABA has made substantial contributions toward producing methods useful in coping with a wide variety of problem behaviors, from profound developmental disabilities (such as autism) to the simpler behavioral problems that interfere with normal functioning in home and at school. Recently, the journal has devoted many issues and parts of issues to special topics, in a concerted effort to reflect the increasing breadth of applied behavioranalysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; publication history; applied behavior analysis
Purpose: The purpose is to review the issue of retraction in the scientific literature and to examine the policies on retraction of major biomedical journals.
Method: The historical background of this issue was investigated through a literature search. The Instructions to Authors of 122 major biomedical journals were reviewed for evidence of a policy on the retraction of articles. Editors of those journals with no mention of retraction in their Instructions to Authors were contacted by email and/or postal mail.
Results: Sixty-two percent of the journals investigated did not post or report having a policy on issuing retractions. Only twenty-one (18%) did. The remainder did not post any policy and did not respond to inquiries.
Discussion: Including policies in Instructions to Authors relating to the principled conduct of research and publication will improve the ethical environment in which the scientific community works.
An analysis of the articles published in 1992 in the Journal of the National Medical Association (JNMA) was performed to assess the content, statistical analysis, and the profile of its contributors. Seventy-six articles were reviewed. The majority of the articles focused on biomedical aspects of health; however, a significant proportion of the remaining articles contained information on the psychosocial aspects of health as it relates to people of African descent in the United States, Africa, and the Caribbean. Most of the literature was derived from physicians in university settings, with the contributions from traditionally black medical schools constituting nearly 30% of the articles. Analysis of data from contingency tables was the most common research method used. This study suggests that the JNMA is contributing to the mission of the National Medical Association. Reasons why authors who perform research with more rigorous scientific method do not publish in JNMA should be explored.
To assist educators and researchers in improving the quality of medical research, we surveyed the editors and statistical reviewers of high-impact medical journals to ascertain the most frequent and critical statistical errors in submitted manuscripts.
The Editors-in-Chief and statistical reviewers of the 38 medical journals with the highest impact factor in the 2007 Science Journal Citation Report and the 2007 Social Science Journal Citation Report were invited to complete an online survey about the statistical and design problems they most frequently found in manuscripts. Content analysis of the responses identified major issues. Editors and statistical reviewers (n = 25) from 20 journals responded. Respondents described problems that we classified into two, broad themes: A. statistical and sampling issues and B. inadequate reporting clarity or completeness. Problems included in the first theme were (1) inappropriate or incomplete analysis, including violations of model assumptions and analysis errors, (2) uninformed use of propensity scores, (3) failing to account for clustering in data analysis, (4) improperly addressing missing data, and (5) power/sample size concerns. Issues subsumed under the second theme were (1) Inadequate description of the methods and analysis and (2) Misstatement of results, including undue emphasis on p-values and incorrect inferences and interpretations.
The scientific quality of submitted manuscripts would increase if researchers addressed these common design, analytical, and reporting issues. Improving the application and presentation of quantitative methods in scholarly manuscripts is essential to advancing medical research.