UNASSIGNED: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript\'s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.
UNASSIGNED: Opinion article.
UNASSIGNED: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.
UNASSIGNED: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific \"response to reviews\" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.
UNASSIGNED: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts\' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

As large, high-dimensional data have become more common, software development is playing an increasingly important role in research across many different fields. This creates a need to adopt software engineering practices in research settings. Code review is the engineering practice of giving and receiving detailed feedback on a computer program. Consistent and continuous examination of the evolution of computer programs by others has been shown to be beneficial, especially when reviewers are familiar with the technical aspects of the software and also when they possess relevant domain expertise. The rules described in the present article provide information about the why, when, and how of code review. They provide the motivation for continual code reviews as a natural part of a rigorous research program. They provide practical guidelines for conducting review of code both in person, as a \"lab meeting for code,\" as well as asynchronously, using industry-standard online tools. A set of guidelines is provided for the nitty-gritty details of code review, as well as for the etiquette of such a review. Both the technical and the social aspects of code review are covered to provide the reader with a comprehensive approach that facilitates an effective, enjoyable, and educational approach to code review.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Globally, the demand for qualitative research has risen, driven by the health sector\'s need for in-depth investigation of complex issues behind any phenomenon that may be inadequately comprehended and that other research methods cannot explore, uncover, or describe. The authors aimed to improve the accessibility and comprehensiveness of reporting guidelines for qualitative research. A comprehensive review of scientific articles was conducted on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Embase, and it retrieved 1989 articles plus 13 more articles through the snowball method. After screening, 17 key articles were identified, which led to the development of Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research that comprises 14 categories, offering key elements in an organized table. This novel guideline complements the two widely used guidelines, Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, by including additional aspects like objectives, existing knowledge, rationale behind methodologies, conclusions, recommendations, and reference citations. The study responds to the rising need for improved qualitative research reporting guidelines in global health.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline.
METHODS: In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent.
CONCLUSIONS: We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the \"Delphi studies in social and health sciences-recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting\" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.

Microbiology education has a serious handicap - the lack of visibility of the players of the subject and their interactions - which engenders a disproportionate reliance upon multimedia teaching aids (MTAs). The International Microbiology Literacy Initiative (IMiLI) is creating educational resources in societally-relevant microbiology complemented by appropriate MTAs. However, proper guidance supporting microbiology educators in locating and selecting, or commissioning the creation of, adequate MTAs for different target audiences and learning objectives is lacking. The aims of this study were to (i) identify important considerations regarding educational/didactical standards and the design of educational multimedia and (ii) create an evidence-based guideline for selecting and appraising existing, and informing the creation of new, microbiology MTAs. This investigation is based on an exploratory, mixed-methods approach. The results of two literature reviews (covering educational and good practice multimedia design) informed the collation of a preliminary appraisal guideline for videos, animations, comics, and video games. A web-scraping approach was utilised to locate and retrieve existing exemplars of the four multimedia types and create four pertinent multimedia databases (including metadata). The preliminary guideline was piloted (and revised accordingly) by appraising quasi-random (or purposive) samples of each multimedia type. Educational multimedia experts were interviewed to discuss the findings. Finally, the guideline was updated to reflect the expert comments together with the results of the pilot appraisals. The final guideline has four components: (i) central considerations for selecting and appraising multimedia for specific audiences and educational purposes, (ii) multimedia selection tool, (iii) multimedia appraisal tools, and (iv) extensive background information as appendices linking all sections for further comprehension. Broad utilisation of the guideline has significant potential for simplifying and systematising multimedia selection/creation, leading to superior multimedia-based learning outcomes, establishing a rapid selection database (pre-appraised multimedia), reducing disparities in microbiology education and incentivising educational content creators.

➤ Sex and gender are inconsistently reported in musculoskeletal research. A panel of journal editors and other interested parties who participated in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Sex and Gender Reporting in Musculoskeletal Research Symposium met in 2023 to help define the roles of journals and other stakeholders in addressing this issue.➤ This report summarizes the resulting recommendations and presents several different ways in which orthopaedic journals may elect to introduce to their readers, reviewers, and authors the importance of considering sex and gender in orthopaedic research.➤ Many current sex and gender-related funding agency mandates as well as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are most readily applied to prospective research and/or randomized controlled trials.➤ The panel was supportive of endorsing SAGER or a similar set of guidelines as a tool that can help authors to consider the most effective means of evaluating the influences of sex and gender within the context of orthopaedic research.➤ Engaging readers, reviewers, and authors on multiple fronts, with purpose and intention, is likely the most important approach to increase awareness and to enhance the quality of evidence utilized to support clinical decisions in orthopaedic surgery.

This study presented a narrative review of the six latest sets of guidelines on physical activity for children and adolescents from Australia, Canada, China, the United Kingdom, the United States and WHO, and analysed the history of the development of the guidelines; the policy context in which the guidelines were developed; and the main subjects of the guidelines. The core elements of the latest guidelines were identified and compared, including frequency, intensity, duration (time), and type of physical activity, assessment intensity of physical activity, and risk prevention for physical activity participation. There is an urgent need for obtaining the latest scientific evidence to support and update the contents of the Chinese guidelines. We therefore make the following recommendations for future revisions of the Chinese guidelines based on the findings of this study: (1) to update the recommended frequency, intensity, duration, and type of physical activities that meet the needs for Chinese children and adolescents; (2) to update the methods for assessing physical activity intensity, and identifying and managing the risk factors in participating in physical activity; and (3) to incorporate analyses and reviews of school physical education curriculum for effectively achieving the adequate levels of physical activity.

暂无摘要。