Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): guiding authors to identify and correct reporting deficiencies in their manuscripts prior to peer review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adhering to evidence-informed endodontics can help meet the needs of patients and their preferences, by integrating the clinical expertise of dentists with the most up-to-date and highest quality research and clinical evidence. Prior to publication, research and clinical reports must be peer-reviewed to ensure that they are of high quality, well-planned, accurate, reproducible, unbiased, ethical and safe so that they can contribute to evidence-based decisions in clinical practice. The task of peer-reviewing publications requires a substantial number of unpaid hours by dedicated reviewers and editors, who have to follow established author guidelines and review criteria within the scope of the respective journals. Likewise, researchers and clinicians in all likelihood spend a significant amount of time and financial resources in preparing manuscripts, which may unfortunately never be published due to deficiencies identified through peer review. Generally, researchers appear to be unaware of deficiencies in their manuscripts until they receive the comments of the editor and referees following the rejection of their article. Guidelines for ensuring the highest quality of reporting before manuscripts are submitted for publication are essential to help authors identify manuscript deficiencies that require improvement prior to peer review. Guidelines also ensure that the designs of future research projects continue to improve by including and considering from the outset the specific standards established for each item within the guidelines. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) is a new online web-based resource that has been developed to increase awareness of the importance of high standards of reporting research and clinical reports in the specialty. The PRIDE team will develop and maintain an extensive library that provides a collection of reporting guidelines in the field of Endodontology. All the guidelines and the related supporting materials will be freely accessible in the PRIDE website at www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. Over time, each guideline will be translated into multiple languages to broaden the reach of this initiative. Academics, researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers, practitioners and others are encouraged to provide feedback/comments on the guidelines through the PRIDE website (contact@pride-endodonticguidelines.org), in order to help the project leaders evaluate and update the guidelines when necessary. PRIDE has been created by its project leaders (PD, VN) after they identified the need to guide researchers and clinicians to identify deficiencies in manuscripts prior to their submission to journals and before the peer-review process. The initial versions of each reporting guidelines were created by steering committees prior to their further development using a familiar pathway for developing reporting guidelines that complies with recommendations from the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (Moher et al. 2010). Each steering committee will form a Delphi Group and Face-to-face Meeting Group comprising a diverse range of experts from around the world who will participate in the consensus process for the development of each specific guideline. The Pygmalion effect or Rosenthal effect is the phenomenon whereby others' expectations of a target person affect the target person's performance (Mitchell & Daniels 2003). The Pygmalion effect can be applied here as ‘the quality of a manuscript submitted for publication will rise to the level of the peer-reviewer’s expectations, or it will fail to be accepted for publication’. The reporting guidelines are intended to help researchers design studies and prepare manuscripts for publication in the anticipation that this will improve their quality to the level expected by peer reviewers and editors. Ultimately, the achievement of better quality research and clinical publications will benefit dentists as they strive to provide evidence-based endodontic therapies with an ultimate aim of enhancing the care and well-being of patients and their overall quality of life.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.324 | 0.843 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".