| Title |
An Analysis of Medical Laboratory Technology Journals’ Instructions for Authors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9689-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martina Horvat, Ana Mlinaric, Jelena Omazic, Vesna Supak-Smolcic |
| Abstract |
Instructions for authors (IFA) need to be informative and regularly updated. We hypothesized that journals with a higher impact factor (IF) have more comprehensive IFA. The aim of the study was to examine whether IFA of journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports 2013, "Medical Laboratory Technology" category, are written in accordance with the latest recommendations and whether the quality of instructions correlates with the journals' IF. 6 out of 31 journals indexed in "Medical Laboratory Technology" category were excluded (unsuitable or unavailable instructions). The remaining 25 journals were scored based on a set of 41 yes/no questions (score 1/0) and divided into four groups (editorial policy, research ethics, research integrity, manuscript preparation) by three authors independently (max score = 41). We tested the correlation between IF and total score and the difference between scores in separate question groups. The median total score was 26 (21-30) [portion of positive answers 0.63 (0.51-0.73)]. There was no statistically significant correlation between a journal's IF and the total score (rho = 0.291, P = 0.159). IFA included recommendations concerning research ethics and manuscript preparation more extensively than recommendations concerning editorial policy and research integrity (Ht = 15.91, P = 0.003). Some policies were poorly described (portion of positive answers), for example: procedure for author's appeal (0.04), editorial submissions (0.08), appointed body for research integrity issues (0.08). The IF of the "Medical Laboratory Technology" journals does not reflect a journals' compliance to uniform standards. There is a need for improving editorial policies and the policies on research integrity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 25% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,264,402
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#315
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,660
of 267,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.