medigraphic.com
ISSN 1684-1824 (Electronic)

2014, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Méd Electrón 2014; 36 (1)

Scientific articles revision as essential procedure to achieve quality in the scientific communication

Martínez AJ

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 60-74
PDF size: 161.21 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Revising the scientific articles is important for the scientific communication, generally developed by professionals with expertise in the treated theme. The purpose of this study was actualizing aspects related with the application of scientific communication guidelines or tools for the development of the role of arbiter or reviser of works for the biomedical journals. We carried out a bibliographic review in Infomed (Scielo, MEDLINE, LILACS, Hinari, Pubmed, Pubmed Central y Biblioteca Virtual de Salud). We used the key words: reviser, arbiter, arbitrage, scientific journal, scientific publications, guidelines, tools, scientific communication, the Boolean operators “and” y “or”. 70 % of the selected articles corresponded to the last five years, and 75 % of them to the last 3 years. As bibliographic manager we used EndNote tool. Several guidelines and tools have been developed to raise the quality of the scientific communication in health, like CONSORT, STROBE, TREND declaration and others. The initiative EQUATOR gives access to many important resources for revising scientific articles, creating a space for the interchange, growth and development at the world level in this sense. Revisers should study and spread the guidelines currently developed to increase the quality of each of the research designs. The editors’ and revisers’ role is important for ethical preserving medical written work; the quality of the scientific journal where they work depends on their professional performance.


REFERENCES

  1. Day RA, Gastel B. Cómo escribir y publicar trabajos científicos. 4ª ed. Washington: Organización Panamericana de la Salud; 2005.

  2. Altman DG, Moherb D. Elaboración de directrices para la publicación de investigación biomédica: proceso y fundamento científico. Med Clin (Barc). 2005;125(Supl 1):8-13. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 16464421.

  3. Altman DG, Bossuyt PM, STARD group, REMARK group. Estudios de precisión diagnóstica (STARD) y pronóstica (REMARK) Med Clin (Barc). 2005;125(Supl. 1):49-55. Citado en PubMed; PMID:16464428.

  4. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, et al. Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1675-80.Citado en PubMed; PMID: 16609089.

  5. Gomar-Sancho C. Cómo escribir un trabajo científico. Cir Esp. 1999; 66:486-93.

  6. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD. CONSORT PRO Group Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;27:309(8):814-22. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 23443445.

  7. Hollenbach JA, Mack SJ, Gourraud PA, Single RM, Maiers M, Middleton D, et al. For the Immunogenomics Data Analysis Working Group. A community standard for immunogenomic data reporting and analysis: proposal for a STrengthening the REporting of Immunogenomic Studies statement. Tissue Antigens. 2011;78(5):333-44. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 21988720.

  8. Von Elma E, Altmanb DG, Eggera M, Pocock SJ, Gotzschee PC, Vandenbrouckef JC, et al. Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales. Gac Sanit. 2008;22(2):144-50. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 18420014.

  9. Gallo V, Egger M, McCormack V, Farmer PB, Ioannidis JP, Kirsch-Volders M, et al. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): An extension of the STROBE statement. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42(4):1-16. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 22023344.

  10. Guía SQUIRE (Standard for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) (Estándares para la excelencia en las publicaciones sobre Mejora de la Calidad) Revisión Final [citado 25 Nov 2013].Disponible en: http://squire-statement.org/

  11. Vallvé C, Artés M, Cobo E. Estudios de intervención no aleatorizados (TREND). Med Clínica [Internet]. 2005 [citado 25 Nov 2013];125(Supl.1):38-42. Disponible en: http://zl.elsevier.es/es/revista/medicina-clinica-2/articulo/estudios-intervencion-no-aleatorizados-trend--13083739

  12. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Catalogo de guías para la publicación cientifica. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010 Jan;40(1):35-53. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 20055895.

  13. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. J Crit Care. 2009;24(4):620-2. Citado en PubMed; PMID:19931155.

  14. EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English: European Association of Science Editors (EASE). J Tehran Heart Cent. 2011;6(4):206-10. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 23074370.

  15. World Health Organizatión. Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME). Manual for editors of health science journals [Internet]. Gonebra: Editorial Policies; 2009 [citado 3 Dic 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.emro.who.int/pdf/emame/emame-in-focus/manual-for-editors-of-health-science-journals.pdf

  16. Forum for African Medical Editors [Internet]. Ginebra: Editorial Guidelines; 2004 [citado 3 Dic 2013]. Disponible en: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/TDR_RCS_FAME_04.2.pdf

  17. Code of Conduct [Internet]. USA: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [citado 3 Dic 2013].Disponible en: http://publicationethics.org/codeconduct

  18. The American Psychological Association (APA). Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS Group). Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology: Why Do We Need Them? What Might They Be? American Psychologist [Internet]. 2008[citado 3 Dic 2013];63(9):839–51. Disponible en: http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/jars.pdf

  19. Ntala C, Birmpili P, Worth A, Anderson NH, Sheikh A. The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review. Prim Care Respir J. 2013;22(4):417-24. Citado en PubMed; PMID:24248328.

  20. EQUATOR [Internet]. Recursos para las personas responsables de formular directrices para la presentación de informes. Ginebra: World Health Organizatión [actualizado 9 Oct 2013; citado 3 Dic 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.espanol.equator-network.org/centro-de-recursos/autores-de-informes-de-investigacion/

  21. Alfonso Manzanet JE, Castro López FW. Editorial de Ciencias Médicas: apuntes útiles para comprender el proceso de edición de una revista científica. ACIMED [Internet]. 2006 [citado 3 Dic 2013];14(5). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1024-94352006000500021&lng=es




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com