Home
Resources for Editors from Sources Other Than WAME
Prepared by the Editorial Policy, Education, and Web Committees
Updated August 14, 2009
This is not intended to be a complete list. If you have additional suggestions for this list, please contact Margaret Winker.
- Policies of Related Organizations
- Selected Books and Web Sites
- Journal-Based Resources
- Ethics Web Resources
- Peer Reviewer Instructional Guide
- Journal Instructions for Authors
- Other Organizations for Editors
Policies of Related Organizations
For WAME Policy Statements, see http://www.wame.org/resources/policies/
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Council of Science Ediors
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Office of Research Integrity
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Guidelines on good publication practice
Council of Science Editors
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services/draft_approved.cfm
Policy on Responsibilities and Rights of Editors of Peer-Reviewed Journals
Policy on Journal Access to Scientific Data
Policy of Journal Referral of Possible Misconduct
Conflicts of Interest and the Peer Review Process
ICMJE
Uniform requirements for submission of medical manuscripts
Update on Trials Registration: October 2004
ICMJE Translations
Note: The ICMJE and WAME do not assume responsibility for the accuracy of translations.
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(Korean, 2006 edition)
Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas
Requisitos Uniformes para los Manuscritos Enviados a Revisitas Biomédicas: Redacción y Edición para Publicación Biomédica (Spanish, 2003 edition) PDF
Requisitos Uniformes para los Manuscritos Enviados a las Revistas Biomédicas: Muestra de Referencias (Spanish, 2003 edition) PDF
English version appears at www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
Requisitos uniformes para originais submetidos a revistas biomédicas
(Portugese, 2003 edition)
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(Chinese, 2000 edition)
Exigences uniformes pour les manuscrits présentés aux revues biomédicales
(French, 2000 edition)
International committee of medical journal editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (Russian, 1997 edition)
Office of Research Integrity
Working Definition of Plagiarism
Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
Back to top
Selected Books and Web Sites
BOOKS
Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
Bailar JC, Angell M, Boots S, et al. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. Bethesda, Md: Council of Biology Editors; 1990.
Style Manual Committee. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 7th ed. Reston, VA: The Council; 2006.
Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 1999.
Hudson Jones A, McLellan F. Ethical issues in biomedical publication. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000.
Huth EJ. Writing and Publishing in Medicine. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1999.
Lock S. The future of medical journals. London, England: British Medical Journal; 1991.
Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 1993.
National Academy of Science. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
WEB SITES
EQUATOR Network [Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research]: Guidelines for reporting medical research and other resources. http://www.equator-network.org
Journal Instructions for Authors: Links to the Instructions for Authors of many journals, compiled by the University of Toledo's Mulford Library. http://mulford.meduohio.edu/instr/
Peer Review Congresses:
Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, Ill: Council of Biology Editors Inc; 1991.
Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. In: Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1990;263:1309-1456.
The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1994;272:91-170.
The Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1998;280:213-302.
The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 2002;287:2745-2898.
Back to topJournal-Based Resources
Authorship
Opinion
Rennie D, Yank V, Emanual L. When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278:579-585.
Wilcox LJ. Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA. 1998;280:216-217.[Full Text]
Research
Bates T, Anic A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA. 2004;292:86-88. [Full Text]
Bhopal RS, Rankin JM, McColl E, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ. 1997;314:1009-1012. [Full Text]
Drenth JPH. Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. JAMA. 1998;280:219-221. [Full Text]
Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;2:89-114.
Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222-224. [Full Text]
Hoen WP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJPM. What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names: a study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). JAMA. 1998;280:217-218. [Full Text]
Yank V, Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in the Lancet. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:661-670. [Full Text]
Back to topMedia
OpinionDeary IJ, Whiteman MC, Fowkes FGR. Medical research and the popular media. Lancet. 1998;351:1726-1727. [Full Text]
Johnson T. Medicine and the Media. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:87-92. [Full Text]
Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet. 1996;347:1600-1603.[Full Text]
Research
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612-2621. [Abstract]
Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan R, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1645-1650. [Full Text]
Back to topPeer Review and Editing
OpinionLaine C, Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:1038-1040. [Full Text]
Ray JG. Judging the judges: The role of journal editors. QJM. 2002;95:769-774. [Full Text]
Rennie D. Editors and Owners: stretching reputation too far. JAMA. 1999;282:783-784.[Abstract]
Schroter S, Black N, Evans N, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673.
Research
Berlin JA, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet. 1997;350:185-186. [Full Text]
Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden M. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer review study. Lancet. 1998;352:441-445. [Full Text]
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-233. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA. 1998;280:229-231. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2781-2783. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviews. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:323-328. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer review quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318-322. [Abstract]
Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? JAMA. 1998;280:243-245. [Full Text]
Das Sinha S, Sahni P, Nundy S. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews? Natl Med J India. 1999;12:210-213.
Davis RM, Mullner M. Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:513-528. [Abstract]
Day FC, Schriger DL, Todd C, Wears RL. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:329-333. [Full Text]
Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422-428.
Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:237-240. [Full Text]
Good CD, Parente ST, Rennie D, Fletcher SW. A worldwide assessment of medical journal editors' practices and needs: results of a survey by the World Association of Medical Editors. S Afr Med J. 1999;89:397-401.
Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242. [Full Text]
Marusic A, Mestrovic T, Petrovecki M, Marusic M. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croatian Med J. 1998;39:3-9. [Full Text]
Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson I. Multiple blinded reviews of the same manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149-151. [Full Text]
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110-1111. [Abstract]
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:267-269. [Full Text]
Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA. 2002;287:2795-2796. [Full Text]
Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against unconventional therapy. J Royal Society Med. 2000;93:164-167.
Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:119-121. [Full Text]
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer rreview: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673-675.
Sweitzer BJ, Cullen DJ. How well does a journal's peer review process function? a survey of authors' opinions. JAMA. 1994;272:152-153. [Full Text]
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234-237. [Full Text]
Wang G, Zhang B. Research design and statistical methods in Chinese medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280:283-285. [Full Text]
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47-51.
Back to topPublication
OpinionEdelson AM. On the future of scholarly journals. Science. 1998:359.
Research
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998;280:254-257. [Full Text]
Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med. 2000;109:131-135.
Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM, Gold JL, Dergal JM, Binnis MA, Streiner DL, Gurwitz JH. Comparison of review articles publiched in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2853-2856. [Full Text]
Von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004;291:974-980. [Full Text]
Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998;280:257-259. [Full Text]
Back to topPublication Ethics
PolicyManaging Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/masm.pdf
Pharmaceutical Company Good Publication Practices Guidelines.
Available at http://www.gpp-guidelines.org
Opinion
Barrie JM, Presti DE. Digital plagiarism: the web giveth and the web shall taketh. JMIR. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e6/index.htm
Callaham ML. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publications. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:82-89.
Eysenbach G. Report of a case of cyberplagiarism: and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using the Internet. JMIR. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e4/index.htm
Franken EA Jr. Duplicate publication: crime and punishment. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:407-408.
Horton R. Revising the research record. Lancet. 1995;346:1610-1611
Huston P, Moher D. Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet. 1996;347:1024-1026.
Smith R. Draft code of conduct for medical editors. BMJ. 2003;327:1010.
Research
Botkin JR, McMahon WM, Smith KR, Nash JE. Privacy and confidentiality in the publication of pedigrees: a survey of investigators and biomedical journals. JAMA. 1998;279:1808-1812. [Abstract]
Budd JM, Sievert ME, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280:296-297. [Full Text]
Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:51-56. [Full Text]
Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Abstract available at http://cochranelibrary.com/. Full text available for fee at http://cochranelibrary.com/
Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS. Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001;7:205-218.
Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, et al. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet. 1999;354:57-61. [Full Text]
Back to topRelations with Industry/Advertising
OpinionDeyo RA, Psaty BM, Simon G, Wagner, Omenn GS. The messenger under attack — intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1176-1179. [Full Text]
Wager L et al. Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19:149-154. [Full Text]
Research
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. A systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454-465. [Full Text]
Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J. Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ. 2002;325:1391-1392. [Full Text]
Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:485-489.
Wilkes MS, Doblin B, Shapiro M. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: experts' assessments. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:912-919.
Back to topResearch Design and Statistics for Editors
GeneralLang T. Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. CMJ. 2004;45:361-370. [Full Text]
Lee N, Millman A. ABC of medical computing: manipulating and analyzing data. BMJ. 1995;311:614-617. [Full Text]
Swinscow TDV. Statistics at Square One. 9th Ed. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 1997. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 1: presenting and summarising data. Crit Care. 2002;6:66-71. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 2: samples and populations. Crit Care. 2002;6:143-148. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 3: hypothesis testing and P values. Crit Care. 2002;6:222-225. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6:335-341. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 5: comparison of means. Crit Care. 2002;6:424-428. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 6: nonparametric methods. Crit Care. 2002;6:509-513. [Full Text]
Clinical Trials
Beller EM, Gebski V, Keech AC. Randomisation in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2002;177:565-567. [Full Text]
Brighton JK, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Specifying interventions in a clinical trial. Med J Aust. 2002;176:281-282. [Full Text]
Burgess DC, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Baseline data in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2003;179:105-107. [Full Text]
Cakir B, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Flow of participants in randomised studies. Med J Aust. 2003;178:347-349. [Full Text]
Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2004;180:289-291. [Full Text]
Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Statistical methods in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2003;178:182-184. [Full Text]
Gebski V, Marschner I, Keech AC. Specifying objectives and outcomes for clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2002;176:491-492. [Full Text]
Hague WE, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Recruitment to randomised studies. Med J Aust. 2003;178:579-581. [Full Text]
Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust. 2003;179:438-440. [Full Text]
Keech AC, Gebski V. Managing the resource demands of a large sample size in clinical trials: can you succeed with fewer subjects? Med J Aust. 2002;177:445-447. [Full Text]
Keech AC, Wonders SM, Cook DI, Gebski VJ. Balancing the outcomes: reporting adverse events. Med J Aust. 2004;181:215-218. [Full Text]
Kirby A, Gebski V, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust. 2002;177:256-257. [Full Text]
Lord SJ, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Multiple analyses in clinical trials: sound science or data dredging? Med J Aust. 2004;181:452-454. [Full Text]
O'Connell RL, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Making sense of trial results: outcomes and estimation. Med J Aust. 2004;180:128-130. [Full Text]
Pike R, Keech AC, Simes RJ. Clinical trials research in the new millennium: the International Clinical Trials Symposium, Sydney, 21-23 October 2002. Med J Aust. 2003;178:316-317. [Full Text]
Seale JP, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Generalising the results of trials to clinical practice. Med J Aust. 2004;181:558-560. [Full Text]
Simes RJ, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Subgroup analysis: application to individual patient decisions. Med J Aust. 2004;180:467-469. [Full Text]
Cohort Studies
Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the Relative Risk?: A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280:1690-1691 [Full Text]
Qualitative Research
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114-116. [Full Text]
Back to topStyle and Format
(See also Selected Books and Web Sites)Opinion
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-694.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT Statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639. (available at consort-statement.org)
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clin Chem. 2003;49:1-6. 10.1373/49.1.1 [Full Text]
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7-18. 10.1373/49.1.7 [Full Text]
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited: a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:69-76.
Kaplan JB, Bennett T. Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:2709-2716. [Full Text]
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality or reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900. [Full Text]
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-1991 (also in Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-662) (available at consort-statement.org). [Abstract]
Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:613-5.
Skelton JR, Edwards SJL. The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. BMJ. 2000;320:1269-1270. [Full Text]
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, et al, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2002-2012. [Abstract]
Research
Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2000-2003. [Abstract]
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, for the CONSORT Group. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1996-1999. [Abstract]
Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. Reporting of ethical issues in publications of medical research. Lancet. 2002;360:1326-1328.
Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CONSORT Group. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992-1995. [Abstract]
Back to topJournal Instructions for Authors
Instructions to authors in the health sciencesWeb site has links to instructions for authors for hundreds of different journals in the health sciences compiled by the University of Toledo's Mulford Library.
Other Organizations for Editors
(See also Upcoming Meetings and Summaries)AMERBAC
The Mexican Association of Biomedical Journal Editors—Asociación Mexicana de Editores de Revistas Biomédicas (AMERBAC)—is a voluntary association of biomedical editors from Mexico and elsewhere who seek to foster national cooperation among editors of peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed biomedical journals.
AMERBAC was founded in 1997 to facilitate this cooperation by providing a semiannual forum for editors to analyze journals and discuss editorial issues with their peers. AMERBAC also fosters broader communication among members and disseminates information about WAME.
Biomedical journal editors have an important responsibility to ensure that reports of medical research provide valid information that is readily accessible by researchers, medical practitioners, students, and others who need it. In particular, AMERBAC aims to assist editors in removing obstacles they often face, such as difficulties in obtaining high-quality manuscripts and in selecting good reviewers, lack of formal training in editing, limited finances, and limited access to publication expertise.
For more information, contact AMERBAC at Aguiar y Seijas 75, Lomas de Chapultepec, 11000 México DF México; telephone: +52 5 55 5520 2073; fax: +52 5 55 5540 3764; e-mail: amerbac@hotmail.com.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
COPE was founded in 1997 as a forum of academic journal Editors for the discussion of research and publication ethics. COPE is international in scope and fully inclusive in subject matter and academic discipline. Although originally established to provide a service for editors in the biomedical fields, COPE now encourages and welcomes the active participation of those involved with other fields such as pure and applied sciences, engineering and technology, and the arts and humanities.
COPE offers advice and guidance to journal editors and publishers on issues relating to publication ethics. It does not offer adjudication in disputes but offers recommendations for resolving difficulties, based on its guidelines and the wide experience of its members. COPE has produced a code of conduct for editors, good practice guidelines and a series of flow charts covering a wide range of ethical issues. For resolving straightforward cases, editors often find these resources are sufficient. For complex cases, or issues not covered by a COPE document, members may bring cases to the quarterly COPE Forum, which will discuss the case and offer advice. These cases are also published on the COPE website: www.publicationethics.org [Information provided by COPE]
Council of Science Editors Inc
CSE aims to improve communication in the life sciences by educating authors, editors, and publishers; by providing means of cooperation among persons interested in publishing in the life sciences; and by promoting effective communication practices in primary and secondary publishing in any form.
The Danish Committee on Scientific Honesty
The Danish Research Agency is an independent institution under the Ministry of Research of Denmark, housing several departments responsible for the oversight of scientific research. An appointed panel of experts reviews cases referred for possible violation of good scientific practice, often involving publication issues. The cases and resulting conclusions are published on the web.
European Association of Science Editors
EASE aims to promote improved communication in science by providing efficient means for cooperation among editors in all disciplines of science, and to assist in the efficient operation of publications in the sciences. Although EASE is European-based, members are welcome wherever they live.
The International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE)
INANE was established by a small group of nursing editors in the early 1980s for the purpose of networking and role development. A loose affiliation of nurse editors, the Academy has survived and thrived for over 20 years, operating without formal organization, bylaws, or officers. A listserv provides an ongoing means of communication. Annual program meetings are sponsored and planned by volunteer editors and held in locations throughout the world
Liaison contact information is:
Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN, BC
Maine Desk, LLC—Professional Editorial Services
Editorial Office for CIN and JHPN
10A Beach Street, Suite 2
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: +1 207 553 7750
Fax: +1 207 553 7751 (fax)
E-mail: Leslie@medesk.com
Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE)
KAMJE, inaugurated 1996, aims to promote the quality of medical journals published in Korea by the exchange of the information on the editing and by the discussion on the editorial principles. KAMJE has maintained the KoreaMed (www.koreamed.org/) a searching system of medical journal papers published in Korea.
