Editors' leadership role impacts on quality of biomedical research journals

Jul 02, 2008

The factors allowing a journal to achieve high quality are not fully understood, but good editorial practices such as accurate and author-helpful peer review and in-house editing are thought to be important. Now, a new study provides quantitative evidence that another aspect of good editorial practice – editors' expectations that articles adhere to international standards for quality reporting – is strongly related to journal quality. The research is published July 2 in the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE.

Authored by independent editor and information professional Valerie Matarese, the study examined manuscript requirements for a set of Medline-indexed research journals. Matarese assessed whether journals stipulated that: research adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki and to animal research guidelines; informed consent and ethics committee approval be obtained when needed; authorship be based on a substantial intellectual contribution; funding and conflicting interests be noted; clinical trials be registered; and manuscripts follow the CONSORT or QUOROM statements when appropriate. Journals' adherence to guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics was also noted.

Instructions to authors from all Italian journals and an equivalent number of UK journals were evaluated. The choice of countries was guided by the interest of examining the particular challenges faced by journals from a developed, non-Anglophone country, in a European context. The 152 journals of the study were both edited and published in one of the two countries

Using citations statistics (impact factor and parameters in the SCImago database) as measures of quality, the study found a strong relationship (multiple R2, 43.4%-57.4%) with editors' expectations for research reporting. Factors that might have confounded the relationship, such as publishing language and internationality, did not have major effects. Italian journals fared worse than their UK counterparts on many of the bibliometric parameters assessed in the study, and this was reflected by a lower participation of Italian editors in the relevant professional associations.

According to Matarese,"Well formulated instructions distinguish a journal for professionalism and rigor and may be considered as evidence of 'editorial leadership.' Insufficient editorial leadership may generate a vicious circle in which authors of quality research are not attracted to submit manuscripts, obliging the journal to accept poorer quality papers. To escape this predicament, journal editors – especially from Italy – need to appreciate international initiatives promoting quality publishing. Lower-ranked journals wishing to attain higher status can consider providing greater editorial guidance to the author communities they serve."

"These same guidelines," she explained, "need to be understood by authors and applied early, when designing a study and drafting the report." Therefore, these issues receive ample attention in her graduate-level course on how to write a research paper.

Source: Public Library of Science

Explore further: Animated tips on how you should and shouldn't approach the visually impaired

Related Stories

Not all plastics equal

52 minutes ago

Ever buy a fish at a pet store that died within days of being put in an aquarium at home?

Why GM food is so hard to sell to a wary public

32 minutes ago

Whether commanding the attention of rock star Neil Young or apparently being supported by the former head of Greenpeace, genetically modified food is almost always in the news – and often in a negative ...

Scientists unravel elusive structure of HIV protein

Jul 01, 2015

HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, is the retrovirus that leads to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS. Globally, about 35 million people are living with HIV, which constantly adapts and mutates ...

Recommended for you

Drug and device firms paid $6.5B to care providers

Jun 30, 2015

From research dollars to free lunches and junkets, drug and medical device companies paid doctors and leading hospitals nearly $6.5 billion last year, according to government data posted Tuesday.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.