Good publication practices: declaration, approval, and now enforcement of reporting standards

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This article introduces a new submission policy for original research manuscripts. Starting next year, such manuscripts will be considered only if they comply with the reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network and are approved by an ethics committee during the planning stage. The information to be included in a manuscript upon submission has been expanded. When these rules are fully implemented, prior study registration and submission of primary research data to the editorial office (with subsequent publication upon article acceptance) will become mandatory for manuscript consideration. These changes aim to transition the journal from organic growth to controlled development according to the principles of scientific integrity.

About the authors

Ruslan T. Saygitov

Eco-Vector IP

Author for correspondence.
Email: saygitov@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8915-6153
SPIN-code: 8641-2334

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Valentin E. Sinitsyn

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Email: vsini@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5649-2193
SPIN-code: 8449-6590

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Leonov VP. Application of statistical methods in cardiology (based on materials from the Journal “Cardiology” for 1993–1995). Kardiologiia. 1998;38(1):55–58. (In Russ.)
  2. Rebrova OYu. Trend in the quality of presenting the results of statistical analysis in the original papers in this journal in 1999 to 2006. Problems of Endocrinology. 2007;53(5):31–33. doi: 10.14341/probl200753531-33 EDN: ZTFHFB
  3. Vlassov VV. Is Content of medical journals related to advertisements? Case-control study. Croatian medical journal. 2007;48(6):786–790. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2007.6.786 EDN: LKKGDT
  4. Musatov MI. Statistical methods quality and evaluation of results: a study of publications in Russian “Immunology” and Journal of Immunology. Problemy standartizacii v zdravoohranenii. 2009;(2):30–34. EDN: KXFPZV
  5. Dombrovskiy VS, Rakina EA, Rebrova OYu. Assessment of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials published in “Russian Allergology Journal” in 2009–2013 (Part 2). Russian Allergology Journal. 2014;(4):28–34. EDN: SMGWAL
  6. Golenkov AV, Kuznetsova-Moreva EA, Mendelevich VD, et al. The quality of research publications in psychiatry. Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii im. S.S. Korsakova. 2017;117(11):108–113. doi: 10.17116/jnevro2017117111108-113 EDN: XHXQBO
  7. Chekhovich YuV, Khazov AV. Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals. Journal of Informetrics. 2022;16(1):101246. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101246
  8. Talantov P, Niyazov R, Viryasova G, et al. Unapproved clinical trials in Russia: exception or norm? BMC Medical Ethics. 2021;22(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00617-3 EDN: CEFXTQ
  9. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva: The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2016. ISBN: 978-92-9036-088-9 doi: 10.56759/rgxl7405
  10. Aleksic J, Alexa A, Attwood TK, et al; as part of the AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop. An open science peer review oath. F1000Research. 2015;3:271. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5686.2
  11. Jin Y, Sanger N, Shams I, et al. Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? — A systematic review of reviews: an update. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2018;11:495–510. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S155103
  12. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
  13. Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. translation to Russian. Digital Diagnostics. 2021;2(2):119–169. doi: 10.17816/DD70821 EDN: FKQJKL
  14. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. Translation to Russian. Digital Diagnostics. 2021;2(3):313–342. doi: 10.17816/DD71031 EDN: OCMMPU
  15. Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. translation in to Russian. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(3):232–322. doi: 10.17816/DD110794 EDN: VPRPPQ
  16. Barber MS, Aronson JK, Von Schoen-Angerer T, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. Translation into Russian. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(1):16–42. doi: 10.17816/DD105291 EDN: WHTQFL
  17. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3804
  18. Struthers C, Harwood J, de Beyer JA, et al. There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT). BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2025;25(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02518-0EDN: OGWYOH
  19. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 EDN: IFOTOO
  20. Leung V, Rousseau-Blass F, Beauchamp G, Pang DSJ. ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0197882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197882
  21. Innocenti T, Salvioli S, Giagio S, et al. Declaration of use and appropriate use of reporting guidelines in high-impact rehabilitation journals is limited: a meta-research study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;131:43–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.010 EDN: RCYGJA
  22. Kumar S, Mohammad H, Vora H, Kar K. Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts—A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. 2018;18(2):130–141.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.08.005
  23. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;2013(1):MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2
  24. Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES; on behalf of the IICARus Collaboration. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2019;4(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 EDN: SKWVBB
  25. Qureshi R, Gough A, Loudon K. The SPIRIT Checklist—lessons from the experience of SPIRIT protocol editors. Trials. 2022;23(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06316-7 EDN: LLYYBY
  26. Blanco D, Biggane AM, Cobo E; MiRoR network. Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers? Trials. 2018;19(1):1–4. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2475-0 EDN: NZKYYF
  27. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, et al. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. International Journal of Surgery. 2016;30:169–172. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032
  28. Stahl AC, Tietz AS, Dewey M, Kendziora B. Has the quality of reporting improved since it became mandatory to use the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy? Insights into Imaging. 2023;14(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01432-7 EDN: GNTEET
  29. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343(nov22 2):d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783
  30. Blanco D, Schroter S, Aldcroft A, et al. Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e036799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036799 EDN: QLYBIW
  31. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, et al. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(3):e332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000332
  32. Wang P, Wolfram D, Gilbert E. Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(2):e0299806. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299806 EDN: BQOFAY
  33. Speich B, Mann E, Schönenberger CM, et al. Reminding peer reviewers of reporting guideline items to improve completeness in published articles. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(6):e2317651. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17651 EDN: EUOCKZ
  34. Carneiro CFD, Queiroz VGS, Moulin TC, et al. Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2020;5(1):1–19. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 EDN: FECPOG
  35. Lu JH, Callahan A, Patel BS, et al. Assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models from a single vendor. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(8):e2227779. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27779 EDN: PJDCML
  36. Heus P. Maximizing research value: adequate reporting and effective (de-)implementation strategies. 2020. ISBN: 978-94-6375-925-0 Available from: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/397221/5ee2b2d9a461d.pdf
  37. Innocenti T, Ostelo R, Verhagen A, et al. Rehabilitation journal editors recognize the need for interventions targeted to improve the completeness of reporting, but there is heterogeneity in terms of strategies actually adopted: a cross-sectional web-based survey. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2023;16(2):111–115. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12527 EDN: ZQPAPY
  38. Fuller T, Pearson M, Peters J, Anderson R. What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0121585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121585
  39. Galipeau J, Cobey KD, Barbour V, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. F1000Research. 2017;6:1634. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12400.1
  40. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Medicine. 2017;15(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0 EDN: UYBDTQ
  41. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Medicine. 2015;13(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3 EDN: JFJLIW
  42. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A Survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
  43. Zhong J, Xing Y, Lu J, et al. The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2023;23(1):292. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02117-x EDN: NWIQBP
  44. Koçak B, Keleş A, Köse F. Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals? Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2024;30(5):291–298. doi: 10.4274/dir.2024.232604
  45. Sharp MK, Bertizzolo L, Rius R, et al. Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;116:26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.019
  46. Shanahan DR, Lopes de Sousa I, Marshall DM. Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before–after study. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2017;2(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9 EDN: IZCRWE
  47. Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMC Medicine. 2019;17(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0 EDN: ACKUKY
  48. Grindlay DJC, Dean RS, Christopher MM, Brennan ML. A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research. BMC Veterinary Research. 2014;10(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-10 EDN: ZVKVCJ
  49. Wager E, Williams P. “Hardly worth the effort”? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;347:f5248. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5248
  50. Chan L, Heinemann AW, Roberts J. Elevating the quality of disability and rehabilitation research: mandatory use of the reporting guidelines. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2014;57(9-10):558–560. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2014.09.011
  51. Malički M, Aalbersberg IJJ, Bouter L, ter Riet G. Journals’ instructions to authors: a cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0222157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222157 EDN: BTPZBM
  52. Heus P, Idema DL, Kruithof E, et al. Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024;165:111188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.004 EDN: ZABVLJ
  53. Levine D, Kressel HY. Radiology 2016: the care and scientific rigor used to process and evaluate original research manuscripts for publication. Radiology. 2016;278(1):6–10. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015152256
  54. Vogt L, Reichlin TS, Nathues C, Würbel H. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLOS Biology. 2016;14(12):e2000598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000598
  55. Dewey M, Levine D, Bossuyt PM, Kressel HY. Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers. European Radiology. 2019;29(8):3986–3995. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5980-3 EDN: DODDKY
  56. Hartley J. Current findings from research on structured abstracts: an update. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2014;102(3):146–148. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.002
  57. El Emam K, Leung TI, Malin B, et al. Consolidated reporting guidelines for prognostic and diagnostic machine learning models (CREMLS). Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:e52508. doi: 10.2196/52508 EDN: BVOUQD
  58. Vilaró M, Cortés J, Selva-O’Callaghan A, et al. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2019;19(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4 EDN: RIQDUM
  59. Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, et al. Does the reporting quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies, as defined by STARD 2015, affect citation? Korean Journal of Radiology. 2016;17(5):706–714. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  60. Dilauro M, McInnes MDF, Korevaar DA, et al. Is There an association between STARD Statement adherence and citation rate? Radiology. 2016;280(1):62–67. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151384
  61. Botos J. Reported use of reporting guidelines among JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute authors, editorial outcomes, and reviewer ratings related to adherence to guidelines and clarity of presentation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2018;3(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0052-4 EDN: ZORMUW
  62. Stevanovic A, Schmitz S, Rossaint R, et al. CONSORT Item Reporting Quality in the Top Ten Ranked Journals of Critical Care Medicine in 2011: a retrospective analysis. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0128061. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128061
  63. Duff JM, Leather H, Walden EO, et al. Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010;102(10):702–705. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq117 EDN: NYTZUN
  64. Dancey JE. From Quality of Publication to Quality of Care: Translating Trials to Practice. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010;102(10):670–671. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq142
  65. Pchelintseva OI, Omelyanskaya OV. Features of conducting ethical review of research on artificial intelligence systems on the basis of the research and practical clinical center for diagnostics and telemedicine technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department, Moscow, Russian Federation. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(2):156–161. doi: 10.17816/DD107983 EDN: GHDTJX

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».