Showing 2 results for Journals
Shr Tabatabaee, O Fazalzadeh,
Volume 5, Issue 2 (9-2009)
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Publication of scientific articles nowadays is one of the important indexes of knowledge production. This index plays a key role for ranking in academia. The aim of this study was to assess the how academic staff in Shiraz Medical Sciences University considered the principle of scientific writing.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study 200 published papers among 1104 paper registered to vice chancellor of research from 2002 to 2007 were selected with systematic random sampling method.
Results: Among 200 papers, 190 (95%) had corresponding author from faculty members. Twenty three percents (23%) of papers were in basic sciences field and 72% were in clinical field. In 19 (9.5%) of papers either an epidemiologists-biostatistician or social medicine specialists were coauthor. Forty five (22.5%) of published papers, consisted of descriptive studies and the rest were analytic studies. Maximum faults in descriptive studies were the missing of time interval stating (26%). In case-control studies, 59% of papers had not stated diagnosis criteria and disease definitions. In cohort studies and clinical trials, 90% and 85% of papers had not expressed the number of missed patients during study, respectively.
Conclusions: With regards to findings of this study, scientific writing and research methodology short course as continuing development professional for academic staff should be emphasized in academic institutes in Iran.
Keywords: Scientific writing, Journals, Shiraz,Iran
M Jamalian, S Kheiri,
Volume 14, Issue 4 (3-2019)
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Randomization is one of the principles of correct clinical trial. The aim of this study was to determine the quality of randomization in the published articles of clinical trials in the Persian-language journals indexed in Scopus.
ed in Scopus D
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, all clinical trials published in Persian journals indexed in Scopus during 2013-2017 were evaluated in terms of randomization using the Jadad scale. The score of the randomization item of this scale ranges from 0 to 2, with 0, 1, and 2 indicating poor, moderate, and good quality.
Results: A total of 452 articles were evaluated. Random allocation was indicated in 423 articles (93.6%). Simple random assignment and blocked methods were used in 42.8% and 22% of randomizations, respectively. The randomization method was unknown in 34% and an incorrect method was used for randomization in 5.3% of the articles. According to the Jadad scale, 56.4% of the articles had good, 36.9% had moderate, and 6.6% had poor quality in terms of randomization. Methodologists were consulted in 40.7% of the articles, and their contributions led to increased transparency in the randomization report (P = 0.007).
Conclusion: The randomization method and its report are missing in many clinical trials. Therefore, considering the importance of randomization in validating the results of these studies, journals editors and researchers should pay attention to the quality of randomization and its report.
