Towards uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to journals in occupational medicine
Dear Sir,Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals were first published in 1978 [1] and have since been adopted by most major periodicals. This has not been the case in occupational medicine, however, and there are currently no standard guidelines being followed for manuscripts in our field. A brief look at the editorial policies of eight major journals from four global regions (Table 1) reveals some clear inconsistencies in this regard.
|
There are three main types of peer review: fully open, double blinded or single blinded. Fully open is probably the easiest, as it requires less editorial effort when the author's identity does not have to be concealed, and blinded reviewers may be able to guess who the author is anyway [2]. On the other hand, younger reviewers might be reluctant to criticize their peers in a fully open process, and as such, the political power of established scientists would increase [3]. The single-blinded process is similarly problematic, as reviewers may choose to hide behind their anonymity and overly criticize a paper [4]. Personal bias, professional rivalry and previous experiences with an author may also influence their review, beyond the scientific.
The two most common methods of in-text referencing are the ‘Harvard’ and ‘Vancouver’ systems, and similar to peer reviewing, certain inconsistencies currently exist in the referencing systems used in occupational medicine periodicals. Although the Harvard system allows readers to keep track of which reference is responsible for which idea as they read, it has the disadvantage of taking up journal space and disrupting the flow of text. The Vancouver system, on the other hand, is probably the most space efficient and undisruptive system for readers, an issue which is of critical importance in complicated manuscripts containing biomedical data, formulas and so on, in the text.
The very nature of occupational medicine, with its industry links, financial support, consulting practices and industry-funded research makes certain conflicts of interest an inevitable possibility. By 1997, uniform requirements had recommended that all authors include such a statement with their submission and that editors should decide which of these the journal actually publishes [5].
For the reasons outlined above, we hereby urge the editors of all occupational medicine periodicals to seriously consider adopting a double-blind peer review process and to include in their ‘Instructions for Authors’ a clear statement of which peer review system is being used. The Vancouver referencing system should be uniformly employed for all manuscripts, and a conflict of interest statement should also be published at the end of every paper. We, the authors, anticipate that the adoption of such measures will lead to greater consistency and global standardization of journals in our field.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Kawasaki, Japan
University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan
e-mail: smith{at}h.jniosh.go.jp
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
- International Steering Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Br Med J (1978) 1:1334–1336.
[Free Full Text] - Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. J Am Med Assoc (1998) 280:300–302.
[Free Full Text] - Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Nature (2003) 422:259–261.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Hobson J. Reviewing peer review in Occupational Medicine. Occup Med (Lond) (2002) 52:437–438.[CrossRef][Medline]
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. J Am Med Assoc (1997) 277:927–934.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||