WAME eLearning Program Sections, Authors, and References: III. Manuscript Processing and Review

The following information is excerpted from the WAME eLearning Program. Sign up to access the full content. 

1. Instructions for Authors

Raoul Kamadjeu, MD, MPH; Managing Editor and Founder, The Pan African Medical Journal (Kenya)

  • How to write and organize informative Instructions for Authors and best practices for what to include

References

1. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Version 4.0. https://www.wame.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing Accessed January 28, 2024.
2. Promoting integrity in research and its publication. COPE. https://publicationethics.org Accessed January 28, 2024.
3. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org Accessed January 28, 2024.
4. JPPS criteria. Journal Publishing Practices and Standards framework. https://www.journalquality.info/en/jpps-criteria/ Accessed January 28, 2024.
5. 5 tips to make your journal's author guidelines easier to follow (and shorter!). Scholastica. https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/make-journal-author-guidelines-easier-to-follow/ Accessed January 28, 2024.
6. EASE Quick-Check Table for Submissions. EASE. https://ease.org.uk/publications/ease-statements-resources/quick-check-table-for-submissions Accessed January 28, 2024.
7. Similarity Check. Crossref. https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/ Accessed January 28, 2024.
8. Peer Review Terminology Standardization. NISO. https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/peer-review-terminology Accessed January 28, 2024.
9. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, Pai SA, Ing E, Citrome L, Alam M, Voight M, Habibzadeh F, for the WAME Board. Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts. WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. WAME. May 31, 2023. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 Accessed January 28, 2024.
10. About CC Licenses. Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ Accessed January 28, 2024.
11. The Keepers. ISSN Portal. https://keepers.issn.org Accessed January 28, 2024.
12. WAME Manuscript Submission Checklist. WAME. https://wame.org/manuscript-submission-checklist Accessed January 28, 2024.
13. EQUATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org Accessed January 28, 2024.
14. Your Paper, Your Way. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author/tools-and-resources/your-paper-your-way Accessed January 28, 2024.
15. Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal. Recommendations. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html Accessed January 28, 2024.
16. Submission Checklist. Elsevier. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/Submission%20Checklistdraft%20Final%20ARRCT.pdf Accessed January 28, 2024.
17. Ready to Submit. Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/srep/publish/checklist Accessed January 28, 2024.
18. PAMJ Journal Checklist. https://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/resources/checklist.pdf Accessed January 28, 2024.
19. Clinical Trials. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html Accessed January 28, 2024.
20. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html Accessed January 28, 2024.
21. Data Sharing Statement. Instructions for Authors. JAMA. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors#SecDataAccess,Responsibility,andAnalysis Accessed January 28, 2024.
22. Data Availability. PLOS ONE. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability Accessed January 28, 2024.
23. Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest. Recommendations. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html Accessed January 28, 2024.
24. Submission guidelines. BMC Public Health. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines Accessed January 28, 2024.
25. Instructions for Authors. Pan African Medical Journal. https://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/view/content.php?item=ifa Accessed January 28, 2024.
26. Clinical Trials. ICMJE. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html Accessed January 28, 2024.
27. Submission guidelines. PLOS Medicine. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines Accessed January 28, 2024.
28. Your Paper Your Way. Social Science & Medicine. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-science-and-medicine/publish/guide-for-authors Accessed January 28, 2024.

2. Peer Review, Manuscript Decisions, and Author Correspondence

Jose Florencio Lapeña Jr, MA, MD; Secretary, WAME; Editor, Philipp J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; Charter President, Philippine Association of Medical Journal Editors (PAMJE)

Margaret Winker, MD, Trustee and Past President, WAME

  • Types of peer review and their pros and cons; how to find, inform, and reward peer reviewers; reviewer conflicts of interest and how to deal with them; types of correspondence and writing them

References

1. Definition of a Peer-Reviewed Journal, WAME. Oct 19, 2007. https://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#Peer%20Review Accessed January 16, 2024.

2. Nature Portfolio journals' editorials. Peer Review Policies. Nature Portfolio. Nature. https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/peer-review#editorials Accessed January 16, 2024.

3. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3 [subscription required]

4.Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine. 2016;14:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5

5. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12 https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12 https://wame.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing#Journal%20practices Accessed January 16, 2024.

6. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research. 2017, 6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

7. Ross-Hellauer T, Görögh E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

8. COPE Council, COPE discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews? Cited October 21, 2017. https://publicationethics.org/files/Who_owns_peer_reviews_discussion_document.pdf?platform=hootsuite Accessed January 16, 2024.

9. Schekman R. Scientific publishing: progress and promise. eLife 2019;8:e44799. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44799

10. Vines T. The Curse of Reviewer 89: An Interview with Filestage’s Niklas Dorn. The Scholarly Kitchen. November 16, 2020. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/11/16/the-curse-of-reviewer-89-an-interview-with-firestages-niklas-dorn/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

11. Pöschl U. Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self-Regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2012;6:33. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.

12. Submit your research. F1000. https://f1000research.com/for-authors/publish-your-research Accessed January 16, 2024.

13. Gottardi R, Henning PT, Bogensberger J, Heinemann MK. Experience with "Select Crowd Review" in Peer Review for The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon: 1-Year Experience. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;71(8):609-613. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1768032.

14. Peer Review Terminology Standardization. NISO. July 2023. https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/peer-review-terminology Accessed January 16, 2024.

15. Ucci MA, D'Antonio F, Berghella V. Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 Jul;4(4):100645. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100645.

16. Kaltenbrunner W, Pinfield S, Waltman L, Woods HB, Brumberg J. Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: an analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities. Journal of Documentation. 2022;78(7):429-449. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2022-0022

17. Lapeña JFF, Munk PL, Saw A, Peh WCG. Perspectives on double-blind peer review from collectivist cultural contexts. Med J Aust. 2019 May;210(8):347-348.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50131. [subscription required]

18. Okike K, Hug KT, Kocher MS, Leopold SS. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1315–1316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11014

19. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, and the PEER Investigators. Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 1998;280(3):240-242. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240

20. 2.1.7 Supplements, Special Series, or Calls for Papers. 2.1 Editor Roles and Responsibilities. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Council of Science Editors. https://cse.memberclicks.net/2-1-editor-roles-and-responsibilities Accessed January 16, 2024

21. COPE Code of Conduct. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf Accessed January 25, 2024.

22. Bik E. Hindawi’s mass retraction of “Special Issues” papers. Science Integrity Digest. August 10, 2023. https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2023/08/10/hindawis-mass-retraction-of-special-issues-papers/ Accessed January 25, 2024.

23. Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. http://nprc.incf.org Accessed January 16, 2024.

24. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, Pai SA, Ing E, Citrome L, Alam M, Voight M, Habibzadeh F, for the WAME Board. Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts. WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. WAME. May 31, 2023. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 Accessed January 16, 2024.

25. Attracting Submissions. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dewb.12424 Accessed January 16, 2024.

26. Statistics Without Borders. https://www.statisticswithoutborders.org/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

27. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors. JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-317. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.3.314

28. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLOS ONE. 2010;5(10): e13345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013345

29. Marcus A, Oransky I. Phony peer review: The more we look, the more we find. Stat. April 28, 2017. https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/28/phony-peer-review/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

30. WAME Ethics and Policy Committee. Best Practices for Peer Reviewer Selection and Contact to Prevent Peer Review Manipulation by Authors. WAME. April 6, 2015. http://wame.org/best-practices-for-peer-reviewer-selection-and-contact-to-prevent-peer-review-manipulation-by-authors Accessed January 16, 2024.

31. COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers – English. COPE. September 2017. https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Accessed January 16, 2024.

32. 2.3 Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities. Editorial Policy Committee. Council of Science Editors. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Council of Science Editors. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities Accessed January 16, 2024.

33. How to write an outstanding review. IOPScience. https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/how-to-write-an-outstanding-review/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

34. Peer review: The nuts and bolts. Sense about Science. 2012. http://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts.pdf Accessed January 16, 2024.

35. Reviewer report ratings. IOPScience. https://ioppservices.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/J-VAR-EX-0222-Peer-Review-Ratings.pdf Accessed January 16, 2024.

36. Van Noorden, R. The Scientists Who Get Credit for Peer Review. Nature. Oct 4, 2014. doi: 10.1038/nature.2014.16102

37. Wager L. What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data. COPE. 2013. https://publicationethics.org/node/19696 Accessed January 16, 2024.

38. Winker M. The promise of post-publication peer review: how do we get there from here? Learned Publishing. 2015; 28 (2): 143-5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1087/20150209 Accessed January 16, 2024.

39. PubMed Commons to be Discontinued. NCBI Insights. NLM. February 27, 2018. https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

40. Correspondence. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/correspondence.html Accessed January 16, 2024.

41. Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found. Retraction Watch. October 23, 2014. https://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/23/authors-retract-pnas-paper-questioned-on-pubpeer/ Accessed January 16, 2024.

42. Shashok K, Matarese V. Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing. RT. A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation. 2018;1. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/10125/9983 Accessed January 16, 2024.

43. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. (2010) Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? PLOS ONE. 2010;5(4): e10072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072

44. Citation Manipulation. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/citation-manipulation-discussion-document Accessed January 16, 2024.

45. Laine C, Winker M. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Policies. WAME. February 18, 2017. http://wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals Accessed January 16, 2024.

46. General Considerations Related to References. References. Manuscript sections. Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#g Accessed January 16, 2024.

47. Jump P. Journal Citation Cartels on the Rise. Times Higher Education. June 21, 2013. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journal-citation-cartels-on-the-rise/2005009.article Accessed January 16, 2024.

48. Title Suppressions. Journal Citation Reports. Clarivate. http://jcr.help.clarivate.com/Content/title-suppressions.htm Accessed January 16, 2024.

49. Savenije H. Announcement by EGU and Copernicus. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics. Feb 13, 2017. doi: 10.5194/npg-volume24-issue1-editorial.

50. Sample Correspondence for an Editorial Office. CSE. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/sample-correspondence-for-an-editorial-office Accessed January 16, 2024.

51. 2.1.11 Considering Appeals for Reconsideration of Rejected Manuscripts. 2.1 Editor Roles and Responsibilities. Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Council of Science Editors. https://cse.memberclicks.net/2-1-editor-roles-and-responsibilities Accessed January 16, 2024.

3. Initial Evaluation of Manuscripts

Farrokh Habibzadeh, MD; Past President, WAME; Editorial Consultant, The Lancet; Associate Editor, Frontiers in Epidemiology; Founder and Former Editor, The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Margaret Winker, MD; Trustee and Past President, WAME

  • How to efficiently and fairly screen initial manuscript submissions to determine whether to pursue them for peer review or reject without review

References

1. Guidelines on good publication practice. COPE. 1999. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf Accessed November 14, 2023.

2. WAME Manuscript Submission Checklist. WAME. 2023. https://wame.org/manuscript-submission-checklist Accessed November 14, 2023.

3. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, Pai SA, Ing E, Citrome L, Alam M, Voight M, Habibzadeh F, for the WAME Board. Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts. WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. WAME. May 31, 2023. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 Accessed November 14, 2023.

4. Conflicts of interest form. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ Accessed November 14, 2023.

5. Lang T. An Author’s Editor Reads the “Instructions for Authors”. European Science Editing. 2020.46:e55817. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e55817

6. Your paper, your way. NFS Journal. March 2015. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/nfs-journal/author-benefits/your-paper-your-way Accessed November 14, 2023.

7. Vessal K, Habibzadeh F. Rules of the game of scientific writing: fair play and plagiarism. Lancet. 2007;369:641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60307-9

8. Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals: Plagiarism. WAME http://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#Plagiarism Accessed November 14, 2023.

9. Habibzadeh F, Winker M. Duplicate publication and plagiarism: causes and cures. Notfall Rettungsmed. 2009;12:415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-009-1229-7

10. CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening: Understanding the Similarity Score. August 11, 2011. iThenticate. https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/63534/crosscheck-plagiarism-screening-understanding-the-similarity-score#.Vq-A-LIrLcs Accessed January 18, 2024.

11. Habibzadeh F. The acceptable text similarity level in manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38:e240. https://doi.org/3346/jkms.2023.38.e240

12. Grove J. Scientific sleuths use ‘tortured phrases’ to find research fraud. September 29, 2022 Times Higher Ed. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/scientific-sleuths-use-tortured-phrases-find-research-fraud Accessed November 14, 2023.

13. Dual Use Research of Concern. NIH Office of Science Policy. https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/special-research-considerations/dual-use-research Accessed November 14, 2023.

14. Implementation of the U.S. Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences DURC: Frequently Asked Questions. Dual Use Research of Concern. NIH Office of Science Policy https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/durc-faqs.pdf Accessed November 14, 2023.

4. Evaluating Research Manuscripts

Rakesh Aggarwal, MD, DM; President, WAME; Associate Editor, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology; Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

Margaret Winker, MD, Trustee and Past President, WAME

  • How to evaluate research manuscripts before and after peer review, including study design, analysis, and reporting statistics, sources of bias and clues to look for

References

1. Introduction to Statistics, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences. https://online.stanford.edu/courses/xfds110-introduction-statistics Accessed February 19, 2024.
2. Finding and Using Health Statistics. Learning Resources. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/index.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
3. 2. Common Terms and Equations. Finding and Using Health Statistics. Learning Resources. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/02-000.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
4. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4, 2023. Cochrane Training. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current Accessed February 19, 2024.
5. How to curb bias in manuscript assessments. Nat Biomed Eng. 7, 1055–1056 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-023-01104-3
6. Equator Network. https://www.equator-network.org Accessed February 19, 2024.
7. WAME Manuscript Submission Checklist. WAME. https://wame.org/manuscript-submission-checklist Accessed February 19, 2024.
8. CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening: Understanding the Similarity Score. August 11, 2011. iThenticate. https://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/63534/crosscheck-plagiarism-screening-understanding-the-similarity-score#.Vq-A-LIrLcs Accessed February 19, 2024.
9. Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, Ferris LE, Heinemann M, Lapeña JF, Pai SA, Ing E, Citrome L, Alam M, Voight M, Habibzadeh F, for the WAME Board. Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts. WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. WAME. May 31, 2023. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106 Accessed February 19, 2024.
10. Systematic manipulation of the publishing process via “paper mills”. Forum 4 September 2020: paper mills. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/publishing-manipulation-paper-mills Accessed February 19, 2024.
11. Alam S, Patel J, Chap C, Robbie S, Scheffler U, Moylan E. Potential “paper mills” and what to do about them – a publisher’s perspective. Potential paper mills. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/publishers-perspective-paper-mills Accessed February 19, 2024.
12. Plague of anomalies in conference proceedings hint at ‘systemic issues’. June 15, 2023. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/15/plague-of-anomalies-in-conference-proceedings-hint-at-systemic-issues/ Accessed February 19, 2024.
13. List of scholarly publishing stings. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholarly_publishing_stings Accessed February 19, 2024.
14. Offord C. The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong? The Scientist. October 1, 2020. https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong--67955 Accessed February 19, 2024.
15. Rabin RC. The Pandemic Claims New Victims: Prestigious Medical Journals. NYTimes. June 14, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/virus-journals.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
16. Mansi BA, Clark J, David FS, Miller CL, Mooney LA, Zecevic M, et al. Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Joint Journal and Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2012;87(5):424–429. DOI: doi.org/ 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.009
17. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
18. Dual-Use Research. NIH Office of Science Policy. https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/special-research-considerations/dual-use-research Accessed February 19, 2024.
19. Clinical Trials. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
20. Data Sharing. Clinical Trials. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html#two Accessed February 19, 2024.
21. Willis C, Stodden V. Trust but Verify: How to Leverage Policies, Workflows, and Infrastructure to Ensure Computational Reproducibility in Publication. Harvard Data Science Review. 2020;2(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.25982dcf
22. Altman DG, Simera I. Using Reporting Guidelines Effectively to Ensure Good Reporting of Health Research. In: Moher D, Altman D, Schulz K, Simera I, Wager E. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual.2014:32-40. https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AltmanSimera-Chapter-4-Guidelines-for-Reporting-Health-Research-A-Users-Manual.pdf Accessed February 19, 2024.
23. Garnett GP, Cousens S, Hallett TB, Steketee R, Walker N. Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes. Lancet. 2011;378(9790):515-25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61505-X
24. Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Balk EM, et al. Guidance for the Conduct and Reporting of Modeling and Simulation Studies in the Context of Health Technology Assessment. Oct 18, 2016. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008-. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396066/ Accessed February 19, 2024.
25. Biases. Catalogue of Bias. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. University of Oxford. https://catalogofbias.org/biases Accessed February 19, 2024.
26. Eckhartt, G.M., Ruxton, G.D. Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford’s Law. Res Integr Peer Rev 2023;8:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00126-w
27. Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg. 2010;53:278-81. https://www.canjsurg.ca/content/53/4/278 Accessed February 19, 2024.
28. Box 1. FINER criteria for a good research question. In: Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg. 2010;53:278-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912019/#bx1-0530278 Accessed February 19, 2024.
29. Prieto-Merino D, Smeeth L, Staa T P v, Roberts I. Dangers of non-specific composite outcome measures in clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f6782. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6782
30. van Zwet E, Gelman A, Greenland S, Imbens G, Schwab S, Goodman S. A New Look at P Values for Randomized Clinical Trials. NEJM Evidence. 2024;3(1). DOI: 10.1056/EVIDoa2300003
31. 6.1: Multiple Comparisons. January 8, 2024. Statistics. LibreTexts. https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Statistics/Biological_Statistics_(McDonald)/06%3A_Multiple_Tests/6.01%3A_Multiple_ComparisonsAccessed February 19, 2024.
32. Reporting biases. Catalogue of Bias. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. University of Oxford. https://catalogofbias.org/biases/reporting-biases Accessed February 19, 2024.
33. Kahlert J, Gribsholt SB, Gammelager H, Dekkers OM, Luta G. Control of confounding in the analysis phase - an overview for clinicians. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:195-204. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S129886. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384727/Accessed February 19, 2024.
34. Manuscript Sections. Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Medical Journal. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#three Accessed February 19, 2024.
35. CONSORT. Equator Network. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/ Accessed February 19, 2024.
36. ARRIVE Guidelines. https://arriveguidelines.org Accessed October 23, 2022.
37. p-value. 2. Common Terms and Equations. Finding and Using Health Statistics. Learning Resources. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/02-940.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
38. Confidence Intervals. 2. Common Terms and Equations. Finding and Using Health Statistics. Learning Resources. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/oet/ed/stats/02-950.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
39. du Prel JB, Hommel G, Röhrig B, Blettner, M. Confidence Interval or P-Value? Part 4 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106(19):335-9. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0335
40. Rothman KJ, Wise LA, Hatch EE. Should Graphs of Risk or Rate Ratios be Plotted on a Log Scale? Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(3):376–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr15
41. Figures. Instructions for Authors. JAMA. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors#SecFigures Accessed February 19, 2024.
42. Streit M, Gehlenborg N. Bar charts and box plots. Nat Methods. 2014;11:117. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2807
43. Streit M, Gehlenborg N. Temporal data. Nat Methods. 2015;12:97. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3262
44. Search results for Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses. EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=+ Accessed February 19, 2024.
45. Protection of Research Participants. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html Accessed February 19, 2024.
46. Table of Contents. Visual Strategies for Biological Data. Expert Methods. Association of Medical Illustrators. https://www.ami.org/professional-resources/expert-methods Accessed February 19, 2024.
47. Focus on: Image Manipulation. The Biologist 65(3):30. https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/focus-on-image-manipulation-2 Accessed February 19, 2024.
48. Scientific Fraud: How Journals Detect Image Manipulation (Part 1). Enago Academy. Dec 26, 2022. https://www.enago.com/academy/scientific-fraud-journals-detect-image-manipulation-part-1/ Accessed February 19, 2024.
49. Forensic Tools. Office of Research Integrity. [US] Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). https://ori.hhs.gov/forensic-tools Accessed February 19, 2024.
50. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLOS Biology. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173
51. wjm's Hanging Committee. West J Med. 2002 Mar;176(2):103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071676/ Accessed February 19, 2024.