↓ Skip to main content

Research Reporting Guidelines in Dentistry: A Survey of Editors

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 284)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Research Reporting Guidelines in Dentistry: A Survey of Editors
Published in
Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2016
DOI 10.1590/0103-6440201601426
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, David Moher, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci

Abstract

The use of reporting guidelines has an important role in the development of health research, improving the quality and precision of the publications. This study evaluated how dental journals use reporting guidelines. All editors of dental journals registered on the 2013 Journal Citation Reports list (n=81) were invited to participate. The data were collected by a self-reported web-based questionnaire. Information about the profile of journal/editor and on the use of reporting guidelines by journals was gathered. Information/recommendations about the use of reporting guidelines were collected from the websites of all journals. Data were descriptively analyzed and frequencies were summarized. Thirty-four (42%) editors completed the questionnaire. Most journals are members of Committee on Publication Ethics (64.7%) and/or follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations (20.6%), while 26.5% are not members of any editorial group. Most editors are unfamiliar with the EQUATOR Network (55.9%), do not work full time (85.3%) and 88.2% have some income/payment. Most of them received educational training for this position (55.9%). The CONSORT Statement was endorsed by 61.8% of journals. Information from websites showed that 44.4% journals do not recommend any reporting guideline, 51.9% mention CONSORT Statement in the website and 28.4% only recommend the use of CONSORT Statement. There is clearly room for improving the use of reporting guidelines in dental journals. Broadening the understanding and the endorsement/adherence/implementation of reporting guidelines by journals may promote quality and transparence of published dental research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Other 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 9 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Psychology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,149,102
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#25
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,078
of 419,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 419,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them