首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Journals’ instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines
【2h】

Journals’ instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines

机译:期刊对作者的指示:跨科学学科的横断面研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals’ instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.
机译:鉴于越来越多的人要求对研究进行透明的报告并防止有害的研究实践,我们对跨学科的科学期刊向作者(ItA)的指令进行了代表性的代表性分析,从而进行了横断面机器辅助分析。我们调查了与报告透明度和研究完整性相关的19个主题的解决方法。在ItAs的三分之一以上中,仅解决了三个主题:利益冲突,窃和该期刊使用的同行评审类型。健康与生命科学期刊,中型或大型出版商出版的期刊以及在开放获取期刊目录(DOAJ)中注册的期刊更可能解决许多已分析的主题,而艺术与人文类期刊则不太可能这样做。尽管最近呼吁在研究中提高透明度和完整性,但我们的分析表明,大多数科学期刊都需要更新其ItA,以使其与防止有害的研究实践并确保研究报告透明的实践保持一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号