Search

Introduction: First impression on potential readers is created by the title; therefore, authors should give importance to the title structure. The aim of this study was to establish whether articles created by a smaller number of authors and with shorter, descriptive or declarative titles gain more citations and whether article title length and number of authors correlate to the number of citations. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study on article citation data for 30 scientific journals published in 2016 in Medical Laboratory Technology field according to Web of Science database was conducted. The type of article, type of title, as well as number of words in the title and number of authors was recorded. Results: In the group of original articles (N = 2623), articles with declarative titles (N = 336, 13%) showed statistically higher number of citations in multiple comparison analysis when compared to descriptive titles (P < 0.001). No correlation was found between number of citations and title word count (r = 0.07, P < 0.001) nor between number of citations and number of authors in group of original articles (r = 0.09, P < 0.001). Original articles with descriptive titles longer than 15 words or with more than six authors are cited more (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Based on results of our study, titles do matter. Therefore, authors of original articles might want to consider including their findings in the title and having longer titles.

Informed consent is a process in which a human subject who is to participate in research needs to give his or her consent after being properly informed of the expected benefits as well as the potential harm of the research that will be performed. The function and purpose of the research ethics committee is to ensure that the research that will take place is in accordance with the relevant ethical standards. This means that the committee must assess the appropriateness of the design of the study reviewed. Research in the field of laboratory medicine has specific features, i.e. the use of samples that remain after routine analysis, data collection from databases containing patient information, data mining, collection of laboratory management data, method/instrument comparisons and validation, etc. As most of such research is either retrospective or not directly associated with patients, the question arises as to whether all types of research require informed consent and ethics committee approval. This article aims to clarify what is specific about obtaining informed consent and ethical approval in laboratory medicine, to provide general guidance on informed consent and ethical approval requirements based on the type of study, and what information should be included in applications for ethical approval and informed consent. This could also provide some guidance for future contributors to the Biochemia Medica.

Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike.

Introduction: Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct. Materials and methods: Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: 186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P < 0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P = 0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P = 0.135). Conclusion: Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.