Top Abstract Purchase Related
Home
>
Node
>
Subnode

Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals

Bayne, S.C.; McGivney, G.P.; Mazer, S.C.

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 89(2): 201-218

2003

ISSN/ISBN: 0022-3913
PMID: 12616242
DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.54
Document Number: 311332
This article provides an extensive tutorial for writers and reviewers involved with the preparation and evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in dental journals. The contents were compiled from the Instructions for Authors printed in various peer-reviewed dental journals and from feedback from 10 workshops conducted for the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. The 10 major sections of a scientific manuscript are reviewed in detail in terms of content, format, and common errors; examples of good content are provided. The review process is described, and instructions on conducting fair and expeditious manuscript evaluations are provided for reviewers. In addition, a number of special topics are addressed, including potential conflicts of interest for an author, institutional review of experiments that involve human subjects or animals, and the reproduction of photographs and other images in color versus black and white. In summary, this article presents key guidelines to ensure compliance with the principles of sound scientific writing and the expeditious review of manuscripts prepared for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.

Document emailed within 0-6 h
Secure & encrypted payments

1992: Statements on electronic publication and on peer-reviewed journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Annals of Internal Medicine 116(12 Pt 1): 1030
Aslam, N. 2013: Writing for high profile peer reviewed journals: prerequisites for effective scientific writing Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad: Jamc 25(1-2): 3-4
Pitkin, R.M. 1995: The death of biomedical journals. Popularity does not equal peer review Bmj 311(7003): 507
Lee, S.T. 1997: The impact of electronic publication and the E-journal on quality and the peer review process Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 26(4): 393
Kaskas, N.M.; Ballard, D.H.; Weisman, J.A.; Vanchiere, J.A. 2016: Medical Student Journals: Teaching The Peer-Review Process and Promoting Academic Mentorship Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society: official organ of the Louisiana State Medical Society 168(5): 166
Nelson, K.N.; Wallace, A.S.; Sodha, S.V.; Daniels, D.; Dietz, V. 2016: Assessing strategies for increasing urban routine immunization coverage of childhood vaccines in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature Vaccine 34(46): 5495-5503
1979: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals Medical Journal of Australia 2(4): 182-186
Berk, R.N. 1992: Preparation of manuscripts for radiological journals. Advise to first-time authors Journal de Radiologie 73(8-9): 421-427
2003: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Updated October 2001 Romanian Journal of Gastroenterology 12(1): 74-83
Barnard, H.; Overbeke, A.J. 1993: Duplicate publication of original manuscripts in and from the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 137(12): 593-597
Nylenna, M.; Riis, P.; Karlsson, Y. 1994: Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language JAMA 272(2): 149-151
Milerad, J. 2001: More rigorous requirements of openness concerning clinical trials. Only manuscripts with all data freely accessible to researchers will be accepted by leading medical journals Lakartidningen 98(43): 4692
Huntley, A.; Comite, S.L.; Smith, K.C. 2004: Audiovisual presentations in peer-reviewed medical literature Dermatology Online Journal 10(2): 22
Cicero, Rúl. 2002: Why do Mexican researchers resist sending manuscripts to Mexican journals? Revista de Investigacion Clinica; Organo del Hospital de Enfermedades de la Nutricion 54(1): 92-93
Supekar, K.; Rubin, D.; Noy, N.; Musen, M. 2007: Knowledge Zone: a public repository of peer-reviewed biomedical ontologies Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 129(Pt 1): 812-816
Alberts, B.M.; Ayala, F.J.; Botstein, D.; Frank, E.; Holmes, E.W.; Lee, R.D.; Macagno, E.R.; Marrack, P.; Oparil, S.; Orkin, S.H.; Rubenstein, A.H.; Slayman, C.W.; Sparling, P.F.; Squire, L.R.; von Hippel, P.H.; Yamamoto, K.R. 1999: Proposed changes for NIH's Center for Scientific Review. Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review. Center for Scientific Review Advisory Committee, National Institutes of Health Science 285(5428): 666-667
Hammerschmidt, D.E. 1994: The vagaries of peer review: a new study and our experience. "At a certain level, we all are more or less held hostage to the peer-review system" Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 124(2): 146-148
Botkin, J.R.; McMahon, W.M.; Smith, K.R.; Nash, J.E. 1998: Privacy and confidentiality in the publication of pedigrees: a survey of investigators and biomedical journals JAMA 279(22): 1808-1812
Iijima, H. 1996: Duplicate publication between Journal of Japanese Ophthalmological Society and English journals Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 100(9): 716-718
Sherman, C.R.; Fernandez, H. 1992: Scientific literature on ribavirin should be "objectively reviewed" Pediatric Nursing 18(6): 598