2019
DOI: 10.1177/1534734619870083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing

Abstract: The objective of medical research is the quest for scientific truth, as well as the communication of new knowledge to the medical society through publication of novel results. Journals publishing these results rely on the trust that all persons involved (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers) remain honest, following the rules and ethics of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and a wide spectrum of pitfalls and misconducts may occur, ranging from less serious violations … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
13
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Writing a review article should be regarded as a scientific endeavor and should employ the accepted methods of medical writing, while avoiding scientific misconduct. [22][23][24] However, a word of caution is also needed: one should avoid massive (re)production of suboptimal, unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and metaanalyses. 25 Finally, informed readers should be more critical in evaluating their design and results, while young scientists should not be discouraged to design their own systematic reviews, especially since they represent integral parts of master and doctoral theses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Writing a review article should be regarded as a scientific endeavor and should employ the accepted methods of medical writing, while avoiding scientific misconduct. [22][23][24] However, a word of caution is also needed: one should avoid massive (re)production of suboptimal, unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and metaanalyses. 25 Finally, informed readers should be more critical in evaluating their design and results, while young scientists should not be discouraged to design their own systematic reviews, especially since they represent integral parts of master and doctoral theses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ing. 2,11,12 Do not breach confidentiality. Do not delay the review because you intend to publish a similar article on the same topic.…”
Section: Avoid Violation Of Ethical Rules In Scientific Writ-mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 It will also publish some new educational articles, as in the past. 12 Meanwhile, this issue of young 2021 is to be treasured, like tender spring around us. 13…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%