Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Journal editors”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1979

Writing for publication: a survey of nursing journal editors.

Nursing administrators have exciting programs, thoughts, and experiences that can benefit the nursing community. Suggestions and advice offered by editors, representing seven nursing journals with a readership of nearly 200,000, are presented for those preparing to publish in the professional literature.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2025

A Qualitative Study of the Roles and Responsibilities of Academic and Journalistic Publishing in Social and Behavioral Genomics.

The conduct and translation of scientific research is shaped by academic and journalistic publishing. Academic journals issue editorial guidelines and policies that inform how researchers shape and present their studies. Journalists select and report on academic studies for public audiences. Despite the potential importance of journal editors and journalists in the scientific process, little has been done to examine how these groups think about their roles and responsibilities-especially when it comes to ethically sensitive scientific domains like social and behavioral genomics (SBG): the study of whether and how genetic differences between individuals correlate with differences in behaviors such as aggression and outcomes such as educational attainment. To begin filling this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with editors working at academic journals that publish SBG research (n = 10) and journalists who have reported on SBG studies (n = 13). Journal editors largely saw themselves as mediators between authors and peer reviewers who help to shepherd along research. Journalists frequently described themselves as translators of science for wide audiences; at times they also saw themselves as interrogators of science. While both groups considered SBG especially ethically sensitive and prone to risks such as misinterpretation, many expressed that systematic ethical review processes and guidelines for SBG are lacking. Further, many deferred the ethical responsibility to minimize risks associated with SBG to others. Our findings highlight the need for more explicit frameworks in academic and journalistic publishing to support the ethically responsible conduct and communication of SBG.

ELSI↗
PubMed1979

Markers for membranous cell components. The 6th International Subcellular Methology Form, Guildford/United Kingdom, 25-28 July 1978.

Problems concerning the use of "markers" in cell fractionation experiments are currently in the forefront in many areas of cellular investigation. Points of view and standards of application vary widely. This report has emerged from a debate during the 6th International Subcellular Methodology Forum, Guildford, U.K., 25-28 July 1978. Marker criteria are discussed, first in a general sense and then in terms of specific cell components. Use of multiple marker criteria is stressed along with selective modulation, cytochemistry, and morphological analyses for fraction identification and evaluations of yield and purity. Finally, some specific recommendations are made toward documentation that journal editors might expect from authors.

Animals↗
PubMed2026

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Enhanced Prevalence and Incidence Criteria (STROBE EPIC): An Extension of the STROBE Statement.

Prevalence and incidence are fundamental metrics with numerous applications in epidemiology. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline lacks specific items for reporting studies of disease prevalence or incidence. To address this gap, the STROBE Enhanced Prevalence and Incidence Criteria (STROBE EPIC) extension was developed in accordance with established methods for reporting guideline development. The authors generated an initial list of reporting items, conducted a modified Delphi process, and convened a face-to-face consensus meeting to confirm the need for a STROBE extension and to generate an early version of the checklist. They conducted 2 further Delphi surveys, first extending from typhoid and other invasive salmonelloses to all infectious diseases, and then to noncommunicable diseases and injuries. Finally, experts piloted the checklist on relevant manuscripts to critically assess if it was clear, concise, complete, and free of errors. An executive group curated the checklist after every survey round. The STROBE EPIC checklist comprises 47 items in the domains of title (1 item), abstract (2 items), introduction (1 item), methods (25 items), results (6 items), discussion (7 items), and other information (5 items). STROBE EPIC items address reporting of study design, adjustment factors for underreporting and underdiagnosis, denominator population estimation, case ascertainment methods, factors producing artefactual changes to observed disease prevalence or incidence, limitations of incomplete surveillance coverage, generalizability of short-duration studies, and data availability. The authors anticipate that the STROBE EPIC extension will be used by researchers, authors, modelers, burden-of-disease researchers, peer reviewers, and journal editors to optimize the presentation of epidemiologic evidence to support diverse health policy decisions.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

RETRACTION: Loss-of-Function CARS1 Variants in a Patient With Microcephaly, Developmental Delay, and a Brittle Hair Phenotype.

C. Del Greco, M. E. Kuo, D. E. C. Smith, M. I. Mendes, G. S. Salamons, M. Nemcovic, R. Kodrikova, S. Sestak, M. Stancheva, and A. Antonellis, "Loss-of-Function CARS1 Variants in a Patient With Microcephaly, Developmental Delay, and a Brittle Hair Phenotype," Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine 13, no. 2 (2025): e70078, https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.70078. The above article, published online on 18 February 2025 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/), has been retracted by agreement between the authors; the journal Editor-in-Chief, Paraminder Dhillon; and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. The retraction has been agreed upon due to the lack of appropriate authorization for the publication of the CARS1 variants related to the specific patient described in this clinical report. In addition, written consent for publication was not obtained from the child's legal guardian.

Journal Article↗