medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2020, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2020; 31 (4)

Characteristics of letters to the editor published in biomedical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru

Aragón-Ayala CJ, Mamani-García CS; Ccami-Bernal F, Quispe-Juli CU

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 1-23
PDF size: 1139.02 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to describe the characteristics of letters to the editor published in the period 2014-2018 in biomedical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru in the year 2020. A descriptive study was conducted of publications included in the section Letters to the editor of each one of the biomedical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru in the period 2014-2018. The variables studied were yearly frequency, academic collaboration, academic degree, institutional affiliation, number of citations and authors, and general and specific purpose. Frequency analysis was based on Google Sheets and STATA 14. Of the total publications, 12.40% were letters to the editor (9.95% in the year 2014 and 12.18% in 2018). Contributions by individual students accounted for 9.47%, whereas publications developed in collaboration with professionals represented 18.68%. A predominance was found of general comments letters (38.68%), followed by personal findings (34.74%) and comments on a previous paper (26.58%). An increase was observed in personal findings publications, which were the most commonly cited (mean: 3.15). Critiques about methodological questions were 9.21%, of which only 60% received a reply from the authors. Letters denouncing ethical breaches were only 1.05% and none commented on the journal's editorial policy. Publication of letters to the editor has increased in recent years. However, their use as a critical and ethical post-publication review is low, and the presentation of personal findings was one of their main uses.


REFERENCES

  1. Tierney E, O'Rourke C, Fenton JE. What is the role of 'the letter to the editor'? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(9):2089-93.

  2. Kastner M, Menon A, Straus SE, Laupacis A. What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6(1):414.

  3. Gotzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A. Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341(2):3926-6.

  4. Von Elm E, Wandel S, Jüni P. The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals. Scientometrics. 2009;81(3):747-55.

  5. Rosell Pradas J, Lacasaña Navarro M. Frecuencia y características de las cartas al director publicadas en Farmacia Hospitalaria (1995-2006). Farm Hosp. 2007;31(3):156-60.

  6. Montenegro-Idrogo JJ, Mejía-Dolores JW, Chalco-Huamán JL. Cartas al editor publicadas en revistas biomédicas peruanas indizadas en ScIELO-Perú 2006-2013. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Públ. 2015;32(1):104.

  7. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica (CONCYTEC). El Concytec instala Comité del Portal SciELO Perú. Lima: CONCYTEC; 2020 [acceso: 15/04/2020]. Disponible en: http://portal.concytec.gob.pe/index.php/noticias/2128-el-concytec-instala-comite-del-portal-scielo-peru?

  8. Taype-Rondán Á, Palma-Gutiérrez E, Palacios-Quintana M, Carbajal-Castro C, Ponce Torres C. Producción científica estudiantil en Latinoamérica: un análisis de las revistas médicas de habla hispana indizadas en SciELO, 2011. FEM Ed Impr. 2014;17(3):171-7.

  9. Domínguez-Lara SA. Are letters to the editor really useful? Medwave. 2016;16(6):e6502.

  10. Süer E, Yaman Ö. How to write an editorial letter? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl. 1):41-3.

  11. Dkhar SA. Letter to editor: its importance and drawbacks. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2018;5(10):4634-6.

  12. Falavarjani KG, Kashkouli MB, Chams H. Letter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussion. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2016;28(1):1-2.

  13. Claros Coca Z, Claros Coca E. Producción del área de Ciencias de la Salud - SciELO Bolivia, gestión 2009-2017. Gac Méd Boliv. 2018;41(1):14-9.

  14. Cantín M, Aravena Y. Las Revistas Odontológicas en la Base SciELO: Una Mirada Bibliométrica. Int J Odontostomatol. 2014;8(2):215-20.

  15. Ramos JM, González-Alcaide G, Gutiérrez F. Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científica española en Enfermedades Infecciosas y en Microbiología. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clín. 2016;34(3):166-76.

  16. Sanz-Valero J, Casterá VT, Wanden-Berghe C. Estudio bibliométrico de la producción científica publicada por la Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health en el período de 1997 a 2012. Rev Panam Salud Publ. 2014;35(2):81-8.

  17. World Association for Medical Editors (WAME). WAME Report: An Agenda for the Future. Bellagio, Italia: The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Study and Conference Center; 2001 [acceso: 17/04/2020]. Disponible en: http://www.wame.org/page3.php?id=64

  18. Altman DG. Unjustified Restrictions on Letters to the Editor. PLOS Med. 2005;2(5):e126.

  19. Cicero-Sabido R. ¿Por qué los autores mexicanos no envían trabajos importantes a las revistas médicas mexicanas?: Un comentario breve. Gac Méd Méx. 2006;142(2):128-9.

  20. Mayta-Tristán P, Toro-Huamanchumo CJ, Alhuay-Quispe J, Pacheco-Mendoza J. Producción científica y licenciamiento de escuelas de medicina en el Perú. Rev Per Med Exp Salud Públ. 2019;36(1):106.

  21. Huamaní Saldaña CA, Pacheco Romero JC. Colaboración científica en artículos de revistas biomédicas peruanas. Fac Med Per. 2011;72(4):261-8.

  22. Gokani SA, Sharma E, Sharma T, Moudhgalya SV, Selvendran SS, Aggarwal N. Impact of a National Journal Club and Letter Writing Session on Improving Medical Students' Confidence with Critical Appraisal. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:1081-7.

  23. Kataoka Y, Sakurai A, Mori H, Yoshida H, Nakano Y, Fujii K, et al. A Workshop on Writing Letters to the Editor. Med Ed Publish. 2020;9(1):6.

  24. Bhopal RS, Tonks A. The role of letters in reviewing research. BMJ. 1994;308(6944):1582-3.

  25. Cappell MS. Is lumping peer-reviewed case reports together with non-peer-reviewed comments for publication as letters to the editor appropriate? Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(8):1901.

  26. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations Correspondence. ICJME. 2020 [acceso: 22/04/2020]. Disponible en: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/correspondence.html

  27. Kirsch M. Letters to the editor: competition or search for truth? Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(7):1596-7.

  28. Schroter S, Roberts J, Loder E, Penzien DB, Mahadeo S, Houle TT. Biomedical authors' awareness of publication ethics: an international survey. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e021282.

  29. Mubeen SM, Qurrat-ul-Ain, Ghayas R, Adil Rizvi SH, Khan SA. Knowledge of scientific misconduct in publication among medical students. Educ Health Abingdon Engl. 2017;30(2):140-5.

  30. Rathore FA, Fatima NE, Farooq F, Mansoor SN. Combating Scientific Misconduct: The role of focused workshops in changing attitudes towards plagiarism. Cureus. 2018;10(5):e2698.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com