The ethical issues in instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals

Yang, Wei; Zou, Qing

doi:10.1087/20150307

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…About two-third of medical editors did not follow the five publishing websites in this survey. In 2015, we reported on an investigation of the ethical guidelines in instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals and found that there was little guidance (Wu & Zou, 2015). This may be due to the focus of China's publishing authorities who put more emphasis on political issues, grammar, and typos, which make medical editors focus on these and less on ethical issues.…”

Section: Ghostwriter Survey Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of medical ghostwriting in China

Zou

Sheng

2019

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ghostwriting has been reported as a particular problem in China, and this article aimed to discover the extent of ghostwriting activity and attitudes by surveying Chinese authors and editors. Three questionnaires were created and distributed via WeChat: an author questionnaire for healthcare professionals, an editor questionnaire for medical journal editors, and a questionnaire for ghostwriters. A total of 1,073 healthcare professionals, 78 medical editors, and 23 ghostwriters responded; 33 (3.075%, 95% confidence interval: 2.041–4.110%) authors reported hiring ghostwriters, most of whom were clinicians (5.06%) or nurses (7.86%) and were in the 31–50 years old group. There was a negative correlation with the level of education. Editors reported few papers identified as ghostwritten, and most of them would immediately reject such articles. The majority of ghostwriters reported working part time as a ghostwriter for less than 1 year and earning little money from the work. The majority of respondents recognized ghostwriting as unethical, but only on the edge of law and ethics, and with few repercussions for the authors.

show abstract

Section: Ghostwriter Survey Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of medical ghostwriting in China

Zou

Sheng

2019

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sin embargo, no existen estudios que aborden la ética en este campo de forma integral, frente a lo que ocurre en el área biomédica (Bosch et al, 2012;Strech;Metz;Knüppel, 2014;Wu;Zou, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Indicaciones éticas en las revistas de educación indexadas en la WoS

Díaz-Campo¹,

Segado‐Boj²

2016

EPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThe presence of ethical guidelines in the instructions for authors and reviewers from 214 journals indexed in the Educationand Educational Research category of the 2014 edition of the Journal Citation Reports is analyzed. Content and thematicanalysis methodology has been followed to examine the presence of topics regarding ethics of scholarly publishing andresearch. According to the results, 11.2% of the analyzed journals do not include mentions of any ethical topic and thepresence of the various subjects studied differs among the rest. The most frequent are criteria for determining plagiarism(63.01%) and duplicate publication (67.12%). Ethical responsibilities of reviewers (7.76%) and sanctions for misconduct(3.20%) have a low presence.Se investiga la presencia de indicaciones éticas en las directrices para autores y revisores de 214 revistas de la categoríaEducación e Investigación en Educación de los Journal Citation Reports de 2014. Se ha empleado un análisis de contenido y temático para examinar qué principios aparecen recogidos y cómo se abordan. Un 11,2% de revistas no incluye ningún tipo de directriz y existe una presencia desigual de los diferentes principios éticos en el resto. Los más abundantes son los criterios para establecer el plagio (63,01%) y la redundancia o duplicación de publicaciones (67,12%). Las responsabilidades éticas de los revisores (7,76%) y las sanciones (3,20%) por conducta poco ética tienen una presencia mínima

show abstract

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

show abstract

The ethical issues in instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

A survey of medical ghostwriting in China

A survey of medical ghostwriting in China

Indicaciones éticas en las revistas de educación indexadas en la WoS

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About