Search

INTRODUCTION: This article is part of a special series designed to help authors in the process of scientific writing. OBJECTIVE: To address common mistakes that researchers commit while writing a manuscript, in order to understand and optimize the process of writing a new research paper. METHODS: The authors made a nonsystematic search in the current literature (PubMed) to retrieve papers that address the most frequent mistakes found by editors, peer reviewers, journals and authors. RESULTS: According to the search results, key findings about the most common mistakes for each section of a manuscript were described (introduction section, methods section, results section, discussion section, conclusion section, references, title and abstract). CONCLUSION: There is a great amount of avoidable mistakes in each section of a scientific manuscript. Overall, among the most common mistakes are missing data, incomplete sections, excessive report of current literature or reporting data in an inadequate section.

This article is part of a special series developed to assist authors in the process of scientific writing and communication. The purpose of the study was to underscore the importance of publishing case reports and case series in the medical and health sciences and to provide insights to guide the authors who wish to submit these types of study. A non-systematic review was conducted to present a brief historical overview on reports published in the literature and to provide data on the main difficulties faced by authors trying to publish in the current scenario and on the contributions of case reports and case series to scientific progress. Finally, we address the current paradox of the simultaneous depreciation of this type of publication and reinforcement of the importance of publishing emblematic cases with major impact on the progress of medical science.

ObjectiveTo analyze recent publications in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.DesignRetrospective review of published articles.ParticipantsNo human participants were involved in the study.MethodsArticles published in Ophthalmology from January 2018 to December 2022 were reviewed and analyzed.Main outcome measuresResearch and review articles were included and analyzed per the following: total number of published articles based on related subspecialty area, level of evidence using the modified Oxford level of evidence, number of citations, number of listed authors, gender of the corresponding author, country of affiliation of the corresponding and contributing author(s), and involvement of consortium(s), group(s), or committee(s).ResultsA total of 965 articles were included. The mean (standard deviation) number of authors per article was 8.6 (5.7) and the majority of corresponding authors were male (665, 70.7%). The greatest number of published articles were related to retina (296, 30.7%) followed by glaucoma (172, 17.8%). The greatest number of Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines were also related to retina (7/24, 29.1%), followed by cornea/dry eye syndrome/external disease (6/24, 25%). Retina (77) had the most level 1 evidence, glaucoma (30) for level 2 evidence, and retina for levels 3 (69) and 4 (65). There were 223 articles contributed by consortia/groups/committees, with most from retina (73, 32.7%) followed by glaucoma (40, 17.9%). The mean number of citations per subspecialty article was highest in retina (45.8/article), followed by uveitis (31.7/article). The United States had the greatest number of affiliated corresponding authors (544, 56.4%), followed by the United Kingdom (68, 7.0%). There were 357 (37.0%) articles with coauthors affiliated outside the corresponding author's country of affiliation, although with a downward trend over the most recent 5-year period. There has been an increasing trend in the number of authors and consortia/group/committee involvement in publications.ConclusionsAlthough team science and collaborations have increased recently, ongoing efforts to diversify individuals, groups, and subspecialties may be needed.Financial disclosuresProprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Objectives This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Methods We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19. Results Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies. Conclusions This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals’ review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.

EDITORIAL 4 Original Research: Descriptive or Analytical, Either-Or or Both-And? Lapeña JFF SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT 6 Sydney Declaration on Predatory or Pseudo Journals and Publishers APAME WPRIM IMSEAR ORIGINAL ARTICLES 7 Association of Treatment Delays with Survival for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Undergoing Surgery and Radiotherapy at the Philippine General Hospital Sacayan-Quitay ND, De Guzman SPC, Cañal JPA, Villafuerte CV III L 12 Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic – Guided Office-Based Biopsies for Laryngeal and Pharyngeal Lesions at St. Luke’s Medical Center Fernandez DR, Soriano RG 17 Determining the Severity of Symptoms Among Patients with Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis Versus Non-Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center Hizon GJS, Espanto JP, Rodriguez-Labrador KM 21 Regression Analysis of Preoperative Chest Radiographs to Predict Intraoperative Location of Esophageal Foreign Body (Coin) in Pediatric Patients Balite ADM, Roldan FCA 26 Olfactory Dysfunction, Dysgeusia, and Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study in a Tertiary COVID Referral Center in the Philippines Tirol CJR, Fullante PB 32 Otorhinolaryngologic Manifestations of Long COVID-19 Infection Among Patients at the Quezon City General Hospital Sison MNK, Cruz ETS 37 Telemedicine for ENT: Quality of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic at the Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center in 2022 Castro JMC, Chua RU CASE REPORTS 41 Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the External Ear Canal: A Case Report Caluma SEC, De Ramos JSM 45 Primary Melanoma of the Palatine Tonsil in an Adult Filipino Patient: A Case Report Cabataña KLD, Salud DL SURGICAL INNOVATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATION 49 A Novel Technique: Scored Conchal Cartilage to Simulate Natural Dome of Lower Lateral Cartilage in the Asian Nose King-Chao NLY, Yap EC FEATURED GRAND ROUNDS 54 A Case Report on Maxillary Ameloblastic Fibroma in a 55-Year-Old Man Mendoza MEF, Altura IC. FROM THE VIEWBOX 57 Congenital Internal Auditory Canal Stenosis Yang NW UNDER THE MICROSCOPE 59 Non-Invasive Follicular Thyroid Neoplasm With Papillary-Like Nuclear Features – An Illustrative Case Mirhan CVL, Rivera JP, Carnate JM. PASSAGES 61 Nikolo Ariel M. Ansaldo, MD (1983-2024) Laganao CRD 62 Paul Christian P. Pacquing, MD (1986 - 2024) Abuan MRA CAPTOONS 63 DokNet’s World Billones WU

Abstract Background The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one’s attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. Methods Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify “Must Read” articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3–4 articles were chosen by consensus as “Must Read” articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. Results Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p

Background: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. Methods: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3–4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. Results: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23–1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20–1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. Conclusions: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The multiyear COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and speed of publications in scientific journals. This study evaluated trends in the impact measures of international medical journals published in Korea, including the journal impact factor (JIF). Methods We selected Science Citation Index Expanded journals with the country/region set to Korea and the academic category classified as “clinical medicine” in Journal Citation Reports. Trends in indicators such as the JIF and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were assessed for journals with JIF information from 2018 to 2022. Ratios and differences between the measures were calculated to determine the extent of the change. Results We identified 43 journals, and the average JIF of those journals increased from 2.33 in 2018 and 2.50 in 2019 to 3.45 in 2020 and 3.86 in 2021. Other measures, such as the 5-year JIF and JCI, steadily increased, and the proportion of gold open access journals also increased significantly. However, the JCI and Eigenfactor scores remained steady or showed relatively small increases. Furthermore, impact measures declined in 2022, including a JIF decrease to 3.55. Conclusion We presented trends in quantitative measurements for international medical journals in Korea, and found an overall increase. Journals need to maintain a rigorous publication process to improve the quality of their research and the research community needs to exercise caution when using quantitative measures to evaluate journals. Further research is required to examine the quantitative indicators of journals, including their publication policies, research topics, and long-term trends.

Objectives: This study was conducted to systematically summarize trends in research concerning patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as reported in Korean medical journals. Methods: We performed a literature search of KoreaMed from January 2020 to September 2022. We included only primary studies of patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then performed full-text screening, both independently and in duplicate. We first identified the 5 journals with the greatest numbers of eligible publications, then extracted data pertaining to the general characteristics, study population attributes, and research features of papers published in these journals. Results: Our analysis encompassed 142 primary studies. Of these, approximately 41.0% reported a funding source, while 3.5% disclosed a conflict of interest. In 2020, 42.9% of studies included fewer than 10 participants; however, by 2022, the proportion of studies with over 200 participants had increased to 40.6%. The most common design was the cohort study (48.6%), followed by case reports/series (35.2%). Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies most frequently focused on prognosis (58.5%), followed by therapy/intervention (20.4%). Regarding the type of intervention/exposure, therapeutic clinical interventions comprised 26.1%, while studies of morbidity accounted for 13.4%. As for the outcomes measured, 50.7% of studies assessed symptoms/clinical status/improvement, and 14.1% evaluated mortality. Conclusions: Employing a systematic approach, we examined the characteristics of research involving patients with COVID-19 that was published in Korean medical journals from 2020 onward. Subsequent research should assess not only publication trends over a longer timeframe but also the quality of evidence provided.

Abstract The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, published since 1925, is the most influential dermatological journal in Latin America, indexed in the main international bibliographic databases, and occupies the 50th position among the 70 dermatological journals indexed in the Journal of Citations Reports, in 2022. In this article, the authors present a critical analysis of its trajectory in the last decade and compare its main bibliometric indices with Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The journal showed consistent growth in different bibliometric indices, which indicates a successful editorial policy and greater visibility in the international scientific community, attracting foreign authors. The increases in citations received (4.1 ×) and in the Article Influence Score (2.9×) were more prominent than those of the main Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The success of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia in the international scientific scenario depends on an assertive editorial policy, on promptly publication of high-quality articles, and on institutional stimulus to encourage clinical research in dermatology.

This article describes information about the descriptive report on the publication of the Buletin Psikologi from 1993-2023, referring to the statistics of published articles, such as authors, references, the number of uses of foreign language references, and the citations. Other information, such as changes in the format of the Buletin Psikologi over the years, are also reported. The results of the descriptive analysis show 320 published articles in the Buletin Psikologi, 54 (16.83%) of which are in English. The average number of published pages is 12 per manuscript, with an average number of citations of 28,453. The findings of this study provide valuable information of the journal metrics of the Buletin Psikologi. Thus, this study is a foundation that can extend as the data of publications increase in the later volumes and editions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EDITORIAL 4 Reflections on Retirement: The Sunset Can be Spooktacular! Lapeña JFF ORIGINAL ARTICLES 7 Computed Tomography Analysis of the Anterior Epitympanic Recess and Sinus Tympani Depths Among Filipino Adults at the De La Salle University Medical Center Gutierrez GTL 12 Prevalence of and Risk Factors Associated with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Carriage Among Cutting Specialties at the Ospital ng Maynila Medical Center Monteverde MRQ, Alcira RCV 19 Determination of the Relationship Between Olfactory Function Threshold and Quality of Life Among Adult Filipinos with Perceived Olfactory Dysfunction Abaya MYB, Ang-Capuno KCF, Regalado-Go JAF, Gansatao FM, Onofre-Telan RDC, Gelera JE 26 Clinicodemographic Profile and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Upper Aerodigestive Tract Foreign Bodies in the Southern Philippines Medical Center: A Five-Year Retrospective Review Tagsa, JMP, Segocio, DJD 31 Clinical Care Pathway Time Intervals and Tumor Progression Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients at East Avenue Medical Center Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Rafanan FMJ, Alfanta EM, Instrella RRPA 36 Periocular Measurements Among Filipino Adult Employees of Dr. Paulino J Garcia Memorial Research and Medical Center Alberto AFJA, Soriano RG, Aragaon MC CASE REPORT 41 Mandibular Fracture in a Newborn From Birth Trauma: A Case Report Ablay IPG, Yambot KKK, Peñaflor NAI SURGICAL INNOVATIONS AND INSTRUMENTATION 44 A Prototype 3D Printed Suction Port Adapter for a Wireless Otoendoscope Garcia MCZ, Amable JPM FEATURED GRAND ROUNDS 49 Synchronous Primary Head and Neck Tumors: Follicular Thyroid Carcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma of The Tonsil Maristela PB, Cruz ETS FROM THE VIEWBOX 53 Congenital Unilateral Hearing Loss from Cochlear Nerve Canal Stenosis Yang NW UNDER THE MICROSCOPE 55 Warthin-like Variant of Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Parotid Gland Curso KAJ, Reyes JCB, Rivera JP, Carnate JM CAPTOONS 58 DokNet’s World Billones WU

Writing is one of the productive skills that English learners must possess in a foreign language. Writing anxiety in compiling and arranging words can occur to students, especially writing journal articles. This study examined (i) the most dominant types of students’ writing anxiety, and (ii) the strategies used to overcome their anxiety in writing English journal articles. The participants in this study were 40 students of the English Education study program at IAIN Palangka Raya who had written English journal articles. This study used mixed-methods sequential explanatory approach. The findings of this study indicated cognitive anxiety was the most dominant type of writing anxiety, followed by somatic anxiety, and the last type of writing anxiety was avoidance behavior in writing English journal articles. Furthermore, the strategies used to overcome anxiety in writing were (i) making a self-suggestion to be calm and think positively, (ii) looking for other articles with good credibility as references, and (iii) building simple English writing habits in daily activity. According to this research, the strategy used by students in the cognitive aspect by discussing with the lecturer or some experts about the tips for writing a journal article may be a novel to overcome the anxiety, especially in writing English journal articles.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic reminded scientists of the importance of designing and implementing efficient research. In this study, the frequency and quality of Iranian researchers’ manuscripts about COVID-19 were evaluated.Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on June 30, 2020, to assess the quality of published articles. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were all articles in the field of COVID-19 published by an Iranian author in English. The authors reviewed the original research articles and systematic reviews using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were reported.Results: After removing duplicates, 347 out of 871 related retrieved articles were remained. Among 35 original articles, thirty-one (88.6%) of them were Cross-sectional articles. There were only one Randomized clinical trial article, one Casecontrol, and two diagnostic articles. Among original researches, deficiency in reporting the sampling method, data analysis, the accuracy of the measurements, sample size calculation method, and choosing comparison groups and blinding (in RCTs) were the most common problems. Nearly 40% of original articles and 81.3% of systematic reviews andmeta-analyses were classified as good-quality articles.Conclusion: Most original articles did not have good quality, while the decisions about treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and policy-making about social restriction depend on the quality of the articles. Journals should be more careful in reviewing articles critically.

Results of academic research require publication and need to be reviewed by peers before they can contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Among the various means of publishing research findings, researchers may, according to past academic practices, first present their research results in conferences, seminars or symposiums, and then submit their results to journals for publication. Hence, the issue of “extended publication”, where conference papers are revised and submitted to journals, has gained attention in the library and information science community. This study collected public documents on the Internet and applied document analysis to examine the ethical considerations regarding such extension practice. First, this research reviewed the basic principles of research integrity and responsible behavior. Secondly, this research listed several types of violation related to research paper writing and submission, and studied the guidelines established by both domestic and foreign academic organizations, publishers, and journals. The findings of the research were used to provide specific recommendations on the best practices for extending conference papers to journal articles.

Introduction: In the academic world, scientific publication has become a constant problem, both in its quantitative and qualitative elements. Objective: To characterize MEDISAN's publication rate according to some aspects of its scientific and editorial production. Methods: An observational, descriptive and transversal research, of bibliometric type, was carried out on the scientific production of MEDISAN journal from Santiago de Cuba during the five-year period 2017-2021. The study population was made up of all scientific articles published in that period according to the records of SciELO Citation Index and Google Scholar databases, as well as those of the journal itself on the Open Journal Systems. Results: During the analyzed period, 38 issues were published, which included 679 articles and 2,367 authors. The year 2017 stood out with the highest number of publications (31.8%) and the year 2019 with a lower number (14.3%). Cuban authors had the greatest contribution (629 articles), especially those from Santiago de Cuba province, where professionals from University of Medical Sciences stood out, with 50.1% of all production. The h5 index revealed a trend of increasing citations received by the journal, since in 2021 it was 23 and in 2022 it increased to 27. Conclusions: The analysis of scientific and editorial production revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the journal, which makes it possible to draw up policies to increase its quality and, with it, its visibility in databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PREDATORY PUBLISHING AND WASTE OF RESOURCE

This research investigated how EFL teachers become more engaged with extensive reading when developing their writing proficiency. This research used a narrative inquiry method to collect data on individuals who have and have not engaged in extensive reading. An initial questionnaire was sent to EFL teachers through Google-form. Fifteen EFL high school teachers responded to the questionnaire, most female and 33 years old. Afterward, one chosen EFL teacher was interviewed to discuss how they use extensive reading to improve their writing skills. The results found that the keys to improving scientific article writing as a hobby are that English teachers read articles from various sources to gain more information and understand different perspectives. Besides, they set a reading target of 15 minutes per day for them, leading to 20 books per year, or at least they can start practicing extensive reading since university. Also, reading fairytales, comics, folktales, magazines, novels, and short stories as extensive reading materials could increase their writing proficiency. In brief, extensive reading improves vocabulary mastery, reading fluency, and English proficiency, helping teachers better convey ideas and thoughts through written language. The implication was also discussed here.

Abstract There are many parameters that could be used to evaluate the quality of scientific meetings such as publication rates of meeting abstracts as full-text articles after the meeting or scoring with validated quality scales/tools that evaluate individual papers, project proposals, or submitted abstracts. This study aimed to determine the full-text publication rates for abstracts presented at Turkish National Medical Education Congresses and Symposia and to assess the quality of given abstracts. Abstracts presented at national medical education congresses and symposia between 2010 and 2014 in Türkiye were evaluated. Initially, the abstracts were evaluated if they were published as full-text articles in international and national peer-reviewed journals following the meeting. Secondly, the quality of presented abstracts was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scale. Overall publication rate for the abstracts was 11.3%. The publication rate of oral and poster presentations were 26.6% and 8.1%, respectively. Oral presentations had a statistically higher publication rate than poster presentations (p = .000). The mean MERSQI score for abstracts was 7.73 ± 2.59. The oral presentations had higher MERSQI mean scores than poster presentations (8.28 ± 2.46 vs. 7.61 ± 2.6; p = .032). Similarly, published abstracts had a significantly higher score compared to unpublished abstracts (10.07 ± 2.74 vs. 7.43 ± 2.41; p = .000). Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between the mean MERSQI scores of the published oral and poster presentations (9.33 ± 2.45 vs. 10.61 ± 2.72; p = .101). This study showed that the main factor for a meeting abstract to be published as a full-text article is the scientific quality of the study. The quality of presentations at annual medical education meetings in Türkiye were low compared with international meetings which did not improve over five years. An institutional policy that would set quality standards for medical education research and increase the awareness of researchers on the topic might help improve the design, execution, and reporting of such studies in Türkiye. The MERSQI could be a valuable tool to monitor the quality of submitted abstracts and to increase the awareness of novice researchers on high quality research.

Abstract Background Manuscript preparation and the (re)submission of articles can create a significant workload in academic jobs. In this exploratory analysis, we estimate the time and costs needed to meet the diverse formatting requirements for manuscript submissions in biomedical publishing. Methods We reviewed 302 leading biomedical journals’ submission guidelines and extracted information on the components that tend to vary the most among submission guidelines (the length of the title, the running title, the abstract, and the manuscript; the structure of the abstract and the manuscript, number of items and references allowed, whether the journal has a template). We estimated annual research funding lost due to manuscript formatting by calculating hourly academic salaries, the time lost to reformatting articles, and quantifying the total number of resubmissions per year. We interviewed several researchers and senior journal editors and editors-in-chief to contextualize our findings and develop guidelines that could help both biomedical journals and researchers work more efficiently. Results Among the analyzed journals, we found a huge diversity in submission requirements. By calculating average researcher salaries in the European Union and the USA, and the time spent on reformatting articles, we estimated that ~ 230 million USD were lost in 2021 alone due to reformatting articles. Should the current practice remain unchanged within this decade, we estimate ~ 2.5 billion USD could be lost between 2022 and 2030—solely due to reformatting articles after a first editorial desk rejection. In our interviews, we found alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process to be as straightforward and simple as possible, and editors want to easily identify strong, suitable articles and not waste researchers’ time. Conclusions Based on the findings from our quantitative analysis and contextualized by the qualitative interviews, we conclude that free-format submission guidelines would benefit both researchers and editors. However, a minimum set of requirements is necessary to avoid manuscript submissions that lack structure. We developed our guidelines to improve the status quo, and we urge the publishers and the editorial-advisory boards of biomedical journals to adopt them. This may also require support from publishers and major international organizations that govern the work of editors.

AUTHORSHIP FOR SALE: A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE