News from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorials1 August 2000News from the International Committee of Medical Journal EditorsFrank Davidoff, MD, EditorFrank Davidoff, MD, EditorSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-133-3-200008010-00017 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail More than 20 years ago, a small number of medical journal editors began developing standards to improve the editorial quality of papers written for the biomedical literature. Known formally as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and informally as the Vancouver Group (in recognition of the city where it first met), the group produced its first standards document, the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM), in 1979. These standards have since been adopted by more than 500 journals worldwide. The group also subsequently developed a series of Statements on editorial policy issues ranging from conflict ...References1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:36-47. LinkGoogle Scholar2. Huth EJ. Identifying ethnicity in medical papers [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:619-21. LinkGoogle Scholar3. Witzig R. The medicalization of race: scientific legitimization of a flawed social construct. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:675-9. LinkGoogle Scholar4. Bhopal R, Rankin J, Bennett T. Editorial role in promoting valid use of concepts and terminology in race and ethnicity research. Science Editor. 2000;23:75-80. Google Scholar5. Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278:579-85. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Who's the author? Problems with biomedical authorship and some possible solutions. Council of Science Editors. Task Force on Authorship. Science Editor. 2000; [In press]. Google Scholar7. Yank V, Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet . Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:661-70. LinkGoogle Scholar8. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al . Improving the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;27:637-9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al . Meta-analysis of observations studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-12. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339-41. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al . Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Current Author Address: American College of Physicians-American Society for Internal Medicine, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByContribution based author categorization to calculate author performance indexLarge randomized controlled trials in infertilityAssessment of presentation quality of the results of clinical trials in accordance with the standards of CONSORTThe need for a change in the evaluation of research done in medical institutes!Understanding and Improving our EvidenceThe need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paperQuality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancerConsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials: The Reporting Guideline for Randomized Controlled TrialsEndorsement of CONSORT by Chinese medical journals: A survey of “instruction to authors”Disclosure of authorship contributions in analgesic clinical trials and related publications: ACTTION systematic review and recommendationsRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in the context of evidence-based orthodontics (EBO)The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiativesChanging trends in authorship patterns in the JPS: Publish or perishStandards of Reporting for Interventional Radiology Treatment of Renal and Pancreatic Transplantation ComplicationsImproving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyondMethodological and Ethical Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Gastrointestinal SurgeryCONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsWill the Real Author Please Stand Up!New authors’ guidelines for Palliative Medicine: More work for authors, reviewers and editors or an essential tool?CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsOtras extensiones de la declaración CONSORT: intervenciones no farmacológicas, ensayos pragmáticos y resúmenes de ensayos clínicosReflexiones sobre la autoría de los estudios científicosGuidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reportingCONSORT comes to TRANSFUSIONReporting Guidelines of Medical ResearchCritical appraisal of clinical studies in Chinese herbal medicineRetorno a VancouverMethoden klinischer Studien in der OnkologieRACE AND ETHNICITY IN PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH: Models to Explain Health DisparitiesAuthorship in the AJRDas CONSORT StatementThe CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsOf Consents And Consorts: Reporting Ethics, Law, And Human Rights In Rcts Involving Monitored Overdose Of Healthy Volunteers Pre And Post The “Consort” GuidelinesResearcher Contributions and Fulfillment of ICMJE Authorship Criteria: Analysis of Author Contribution Lists in Research Articles with Multiple Authors Published in RadiologyGood publication practice for pharmaceutical companiesAnnals of Internal Medicine at Age 75: Reflections on the Past 25 YearsEdward J. Huth, MD and Kathleen Case, MSPublicar un artículo. El proceso editorialThe CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trialsThe CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsWriting Manuscripts Describing Clinical Trials: A Guide for Pharmacotherapeutic ResearchersThe CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsDavid Moher, MSc, Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, and Douglas G. Altman, DSc, for the CONSORT Group*The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and ElaborationDouglas G. Altman, DSc, Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, David Moher, MSc, Matthias Egger, MD, Frank Davidoff, MD, Diana Elbourne, PhD, Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD, and Thomas Lang, MA, for the CONSORT GroupThe CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsRadiology 2001—The Upcoming Year 1 August 2000Volume 133, Issue 3Page: 229-231KeywordsConflicts of interestData acquisitionObservational studiesRacial and ethnic issuesRandomized trialsResearch designResearch reporting guidelines Issue Published: 1 August 2000 CopyrightCopyright © 2000 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it