Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals
The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate "editorial leadership" in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and jo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2008-07, Vol.3 (7), p.e2512-e2512 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e2512 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e2512 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 3 |
| creator | Matarese, Valerie |
| description | The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate "editorial leadership" in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and journal quality, research journals from two European countries, one Anglophone and one non-Anglophone, were studied and compared. Quality was measured on a panel of bibliometric parameters while editorial leadership was evaluated from journals' instructions to authors.
The study considered all 76 Italian journals indexed in Medline and 76 randomly chosen UK journals; only journals both edited and published in these countries were studied. Compared to UK journals, Italian journals published fewer papers (median, 60 vs. 93; p = 0.006), less often had online archives (43 vs. 74; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0002512 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1312319543</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A472641716</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b1eea3c2a44440838569b165ca8f8f58</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A472641716</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c662t-abb1441041119a896df2cdcc03b39cb7215022bbf0393d2e8a026aa35d19ea613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiIVXiYhcfEsfpBVJVcVhRqVKh3FoTZ7LrlTfe2k5hH4D3xnto2UVckFzY8nz_P_ZoJsteUjKmvKLv5m7wPdjx0vU4JoSwkrJH2TGtORsJRvjjvf1R9iyEOSEll0I8zY6oLGtRc3mc_bpGC9G4PszMMm8w_kDs89sBrImrHPo2x9ZE5w3Y3CK06Deg6_LGuEWK6RTwGBC8nuW7O4WzHHLtFkvwyfsO8xCHdrUWTWIyhn5jfPPlgX-ePenSgi9260l28_HDt4vPo8urT5OL88uRFoLFETQNLQpKCkppDbIWbcd0qzXhDa91UzFaEsaapiO85i1DCYQJAF62tEYQlJ9kr7e-S-uCus-uKKeM07oseCImW6J1MFdLbxbgV8qBUZsD56cKfDTaomooInDNoEgfkVyWom6oKDXITnalTF7vd9mGJpVKYx892APTw0hvZmrq7hQruCyqIhmc7gy8ux0wRLUwQaO10KMbghI1k1W1Ad_8Bf77beMtNYV0fdN3LmXV6W9xYXRqo86k8_OiYqKgFRVJ8PZAkJiIP-MUhhDU5Ov1_7NX3w_Z0z12hmDjLDg7bPrwECy2oPYuBI_dQ_EoUespuH-nWk-B2k1Bkr3aL_wf0a7t-W8XpwTz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1312319543</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Matarese, Valerie</creator><contributor>Scherer, Roberta W.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Matarese, Valerie ; Scherer, Roberta W.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate "editorial leadership" in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and journal quality, research journals from two European countries, one Anglophone and one non-Anglophone, were studied and compared. Quality was measured on a panel of bibliometric parameters while editorial leadership was evaluated from journals' instructions to authors.
The study considered all 76 Italian journals indexed in Medline and 76 randomly chosen UK journals; only journals both edited and published in these countries were studied. Compared to UK journals, Italian journals published fewer papers (median, 60 vs. 93; p = 0.006), less often had online archives (43 vs. 74; p<0.001) and had lower median values of impact factor (1.2 vs. 2.7, p<0.001) and SCImago journal rank (0.09 vs. 0.25, p<0.001). Regarding editorial leadership, Italian journals less frequently required manuscripts to specify competing interests (p<0.001), authors' contributions (p = 0.005), funding (p<0.001), informed consent (p<0.001), ethics committee review (p<0.001). No Italian journal adhered to COPE or the CONSORT and QUOROM statements nor required clinical trial registration, while these characteristics were observed in 15%-43% of UK journals (p<0.001). At multiple regression, editorial leadership predicted 37.1%-49.9% of the variance in journal quality defined by citation statistics (p<0.0001); confounding variables inherent to a cross-cultural comparison had a relatively small contribution, explaining an additional 6.2%-13.8% of the variance.
Journals from Italy scored worse for quality and editorial leadership than did their UK counterparts. Editorial leadership predicted quality for the entire set of journals. Greater appreciation of international initiatives to improve biomedical reporting may help low-quality journals achieve higher status.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002512</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18596938</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Archives & records ; Bias ; Bibliometrics ; Biomedical research ; Biomedical Research - standards ; Citation analysis ; Clinical trials ; Committees ; Editorial Policies ; Editorials ; Ethics ; Informed consent ; Italy ; Leadership ; Median (statistics) ; Medical ethics ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Non-Clinical Medicine/Communication in Health Care ; Non-Clinical Medicine/Medical Journals ; Peer Review, Research - standards ; Periodicals as Topic - standards ; Publishing ; Quality ; R&D ; Research & development ; Science Policy ; Scientometrics ; Studies ; United Kingdom ; Variance</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2008-07, Vol.3 (7), p.e2512-e2512</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2008 Valerie Matarese. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Valerie Matarese. 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c662t-abb1441041119a896df2cdcc03b39cb7215022bbf0393d2e8a026aa35d19ea613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c662t-abb1441041119a896df2cdcc03b39cb7215022bbf0393d2e8a026aa35d19ea613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438474/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438474/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23864,27922,27923,53789,53791,79370,79371</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18596938$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Scherer, Roberta W.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Matarese, Valerie</creatorcontrib><title>Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description><![CDATA[The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate "editorial leadership" in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and journal quality, research journals from two European countries, one Anglophone and one non-Anglophone, were studied and compared. Quality was measured on a panel of bibliometric parameters while editorial leadership was evaluated from journals' instructions to authors.
The study considered all 76 Italian journals indexed in Medline and 76 randomly chosen UK journals; only journals both edited and published in these countries were studied. Compared to UK journals, Italian journals published fewer papers (median, 60 vs. 93; p = 0.006), less often had online archives (43 vs. 74; p<0.001) and had lower median values of impact factor (1.2 vs. 2.7, p<0.001) and SCImago journal rank (0.09 vs. 0.25, p<0.001). Regarding editorial leadership, Italian journals less frequently required manuscripts to specify competing interests (p<0.001), authors' contributions (p = 0.005), funding (p<0.001), informed consent (p<0.001), ethics committee review (p<0.001). No Italian journal adhered to COPE or the CONSORT and QUOROM statements nor required clinical trial registration, while these characteristics were observed in 15%-43% of UK journals (p<0.001). At multiple regression, editorial leadership predicted 37.1%-49.9% of the variance in journal quality defined by citation statistics (p<0.0001); confounding variables inherent to a cross-cultural comparison had a relatively small contribution, explaining an additional 6.2%-13.8% of the variance.
Journals from Italy scored worse for quality and editorial leadership than did their UK counterparts. Editorial leadership predicted quality for the entire set of journals. Greater appreciation of international initiatives to improve biomedical reporting may help low-quality journals achieve higher status.]]></description><subject>Archives & records</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biomedical research</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - standards</subject><subject>Citation analysis</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Committees</subject><subject>Editorial Policies</subject><subject>Editorials</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Median (statistics)</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Non-Clinical Medicine/Communication in Health Care</subject><subject>Non-Clinical Medicine/Medical Journals</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Scientometrics</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Variance</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiIVXiYhcfEsfpBVJVcVhRqVKh3FoTZ7LrlTfe2k5hH4D3xnto2UVckFzY8nz_P_ZoJsteUjKmvKLv5m7wPdjx0vU4JoSwkrJH2TGtORsJRvjjvf1R9iyEOSEll0I8zY6oLGtRc3mc_bpGC9G4PszMMm8w_kDs89sBrImrHPo2x9ZE5w3Y3CK06Deg6_LGuEWK6RTwGBC8nuW7O4WzHHLtFkvwyfsO8xCHdrUWTWIyhn5jfPPlgX-ePenSgi9260l28_HDt4vPo8urT5OL88uRFoLFETQNLQpKCkppDbIWbcd0qzXhDa91UzFaEsaapiO85i1DCYQJAF62tEYQlJ9kr7e-S-uCus-uKKeM07oseCImW6J1MFdLbxbgV8qBUZsD56cKfDTaomooInDNoEgfkVyWom6oKDXITnalTF7vd9mGJpVKYx892APTw0hvZmrq7hQruCyqIhmc7gy8ux0wRLUwQaO10KMbghI1k1W1Ad_8Bf77beMtNYV0fdN3LmXV6W9xYXRqo86k8_OiYqKgFRVJ8PZAkJiIP-MUhhDU5Ov1_7NX3w_Z0z12hmDjLDg7bPrwECy2oPYuBI_dQ_EoUespuH-nWk-B2k1Bkr3aL_wf0a7t-W8XpwTz</recordid><startdate>20080702</startdate><enddate>20080702</enddate><creator>Matarese, Valerie</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080702</creationdate><title>Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals</title><author>Matarese, Valerie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c662t-abb1441041119a896df2cdcc03b39cb7215022bbf0393d2e8a026aa35d19ea613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Archives & records</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biomedical research</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - standards</topic><topic>Citation analysis</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Committees</topic><topic>Editorial Policies</topic><topic>Editorials</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Median (statistics)</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Non-Clinical Medicine/Communication in Health Care</topic><topic>Non-Clinical Medicine/Medical Journals</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Scientometrics</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Variance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Matarese, Valerie</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Matarese, Valerie</au><au>Scherer, Roberta W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2008-07-02</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e2512</spage><epage>e2512</epage><pages>e2512-e2512</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[The quality of biomedical reporting is guided by statements of several organizations. Although not all journals adhere to these guidelines, those that do demonstrate "editorial leadership" in their author community. To investigate a possible relationship between editorial leadership and journal quality, research journals from two European countries, one Anglophone and one non-Anglophone, were studied and compared. Quality was measured on a panel of bibliometric parameters while editorial leadership was evaluated from journals' instructions to authors.
The study considered all 76 Italian journals indexed in Medline and 76 randomly chosen UK journals; only journals both edited and published in these countries were studied. Compared to UK journals, Italian journals published fewer papers (median, 60 vs. 93; p = 0.006), less often had online archives (43 vs. 74; p<0.001) and had lower median values of impact factor (1.2 vs. 2.7, p<0.001) and SCImago journal rank (0.09 vs. 0.25, p<0.001). Regarding editorial leadership, Italian journals less frequently required manuscripts to specify competing interests (p<0.001), authors' contributions (p = 0.005), funding (p<0.001), informed consent (p<0.001), ethics committee review (p<0.001). No Italian journal adhered to COPE or the CONSORT and QUOROM statements nor required clinical trial registration, while these characteristics were observed in 15%-43% of UK journals (p<0.001). At multiple regression, editorial leadership predicted 37.1%-49.9% of the variance in journal quality defined by citation statistics (p<0.0001); confounding variables inherent to a cross-cultural comparison had a relatively small contribution, explaining an additional 6.2%-13.8% of the variance.
Journals from Italy scored worse for quality and editorial leadership than did their UK counterparts. Editorial leadership predicted quality for the entire set of journals. Greater appreciation of international initiatives to improve biomedical reporting may help low-quality journals achieve higher status.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>18596938</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0002512</doi><tpages>e2512</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2008-07, Vol.3 (7), p.e2512-e2512 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1312319543 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Archives & records Bias Bibliometrics Biomedical research Biomedical Research - standards Citation analysis Clinical trials Committees Editorial Policies Editorials Ethics Informed consent Italy Leadership Median (statistics) Medical ethics Medical research Medicine Non-Clinical Medicine/Communication in Health Care Non-Clinical Medicine/Medical Journals Peer Review, Research - standards Periodicals as Topic - standards Publishing Quality R&D Research & development Science Policy Scientometrics Studies United Kingdom Variance |
| title | Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T15%3A10%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Relationship%20between%20quality%20and%20editorial%20leadership%20of%20biomedical%20research%20journals:%20a%20comparative%20study%20of%20Italian%20and%20UK%20journals&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Matarese,%20Valerie&rft.date=2008-07-02&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e2512&rft.epage=e2512&rft.pages=e2512-e2512&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002512&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA472641716%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1312319543&rft_id=info:pmid/18596938&rft_galeid=A472641716&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b1eea3c2a44440838569b165ca8f8f58&rfr_iscdi=true |