Preview

Вопросы современной педиатрии

Расширенный поиск

Редакционная деятельность как она есть: комментарии научного редактора

https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2244

Полный текст:

Об авторе

Р. Т. Сайгитов
ООО «Издательство „ПедиатрЪ”»
Россия

Сайгитов Руслан Темирсултанович - доктор медицинских наук, научный редактор журнала «Вопросы современной педиатрии», заместитель главного редактора журнала «Педиатрическая фармакология»
117335, Москва, ул. Вавилова, д. 81, корп. 1, оф. 2-8.
тел.: +7 (499) 132-02-07


Конфликт интересов:

Автор статьи является руководителем образовательного (некоммерческого) проекта Sci-Pub (www.sci-pub.ru), приглашенным лектором в проектах SciCraft («Школа научного ремесла») и «Академия „Эко-Вектор”» (OOO «ЭкоВектор»), по совместительству — директором по научным и издательским проектам Ассоциации детских ревматологов (Россия).



Список литературы

1. Smith NL. An Analysis of Ethical Challenges in Evaluation. Am J Eval. 2002;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1177/109821400202300208

2. Костик М.М. К вопросу о редактировании статей, или Как наладить коммуникацию автора и редактора: взгляд автора. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2021;20(1):87-90. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2245

3. Сайгитов Р.Т. Правила и рекомендации по представлению рукописей, содержащих результаты оригинальных исследовании // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2015. — Т. 14. — № 3. — С. 425-432. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v14i3.1382

4. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869

5. Сайгитов Р.Т., Островская А.С. Рекомендации ICMJE-2016: обновленный стандарт научных публикаций в медицинских журналах // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2017. — Т. 16. — № 2. — С. 88-89. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v16i2.1709

6. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

7. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799

8. Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026

9. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Saeta A, et al. The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines. Int J Surg. 2016; 34:180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.014

10. 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

11. COPE. Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE Report 1999. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

12. Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, et al. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):461-464. doi: 10.7326/M15-0288

13. ICH harmonised guideline. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. E6(R2). Available online: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

14. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (updated December 2019). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

15. Organisations supporting EQUATOR. Available online: https:// www.equator-network.org/about-us/organisations-supporting-equator. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

16. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011; 343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783

17. Wynne KE, Simpson BJ, Berman L, et al. Results of a longitudinal study of rigorous manuscript submission guidelines designed to improve the quality of clinical research reporting in a peer-reviewed surgical journal. J Pediatr Surg. 2011;46(1):131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.09.077

18. Pandis N, Shamseer L, Kokich VG, et al. Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(9):1044-1048. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.001

19. Exclusive interview with developers of STROBE guidelines for reporting of epidemiologic studies. Epi Monitor. 2007;28(11):2-5. Available online: https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/commentaries/STROBE_EpiMonitor_Nov07.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

20. Vilaro M, Cortes J, Selva-O'Callaghan A, et al. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peerreview. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4

21. Shanahan DR, Lopes de Sousa I, Marshall DM. Simple decisiontree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before-after study. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017; 2:20. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9

22. Blanco D, Hren D, Kirkham JJ, et al. A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. F1000Research. 2019;8:1682. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20556.1

23. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2825-2828. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2825

24. Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research. 2016;5:683. doi: 10.12688/f1000re-search.8452.2

25. How editors edit. Nat Methods. 2019;16:135. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0324-z

26. Johnston SC, Lowenstein DH, Ferriero DM, et al. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Ann Neurol. 2007;61(4):A10-A12. doi: 10.1002/ana.21150

27. Esarey J. Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2017;50(4):963-969. doi: 10.1017/S1049096517001081

28. Kleinert S, Wager E. Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, eds. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing; 2011. pp. 317-328.

29. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-514. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062

30. Mayo NE, Goldberg MS. When is a case-control study not a casecontrol study? J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(4):209-216. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0343

31. Esene IN, Ngu J, El Zoghby M, et al. Case series and descriptive cohort studies in neurosurgery: the confusion and solution. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:1321-1332. doi: 10.1007/s00381-014-2460-1

32. Медицинские (научные) редакторы. Доступно по: https://www.facebook.com/groups/996525337155780/permalink/1888423534632618. Ссылка активна на 21.02.2021.

33. Nature Research Editing Service. Scientific Editing. Available online: https://authorservices.springernature.com/scientific-editing. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

34. Сайгитов Р. Эффективность редакционной деятельности при подготовке рукописей, содержащих результаты оригинальных работ: итоги рандомизированного контролируемого исследования // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2010. — Т. 9. — № 6. — С. 5-15.

35. G0tzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A. Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341:c3926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3926

36. Gerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, et al. Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:9. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00096-x

37. Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. Peer J. 2019; 7:e8247. doi:.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

38. Hamilton DG, Fraser H, Hoekstra R, Fidler F. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review. Elife. 2020 Nov 19;9:e62529. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62529

39. Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations. Nature. 2019;573:174. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9

40. El-Rayess H, Khamis AM, Haddad S, et al. Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.040

41. ICMJE Disclosure Form (Updated February 2021). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

42. Островская А.С. Раскрытие конфликта интересов автора: зачем? // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2016. — Т. 15. — № 6. — С. 542-546. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v15i6.1646

43. COPE. Cases: How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/case/how-respond-readers-repeated-concerns. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

44. Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, et al. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(5):706-714. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706

45. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, et al. Association between bibliometric parameters, reporting and methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in vascular and endovascular surgery. Vascular. 2017;25(2):196-207. doi: 10.1177/1708538116653289

46. Mackinnon S, Drozdowska BA, Hamilton M, et al. Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020331. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020331

47. Felix Schonbrodt’s blog. Available online: https://www.nicebread.de/2017/05. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

48. Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118

49. Barnett AG. Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places? F1000Research. 2018;7:450. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.14488.3

50. Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Literature survey of high-impact journals revealed reporting weaknesses in abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):708-715. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.014

51. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Available online: https://sfdora.org/read. Accessed on February 21, 2021.

52. Altman DG, Moher D. Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ. 2013;347:f4796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4796


Для цитирования:


Сайгитов Р.Т. Редакционная деятельность как она есть: комментарии научного редактора. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2021;20(1):10-18. https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2244

For citation:


Saygitov R.T. Editorial Activity as It is: Scientific Editor Commentaries. Current Pediatrics. 2021;20(1):10-18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2244

Просмотров: 320


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1682-5527 (Print)
ISSN 1682-5535 (Online)