medigraphic.com
Boletín Clínico de la Asociación Médica del Hospital Infantil del Estado de Sonora

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Bol Clin Hosp Infant Edo Son 2018; 35 (1)

Criteria to consider to improve the quality in Mexican medical journals

Sotelo CN

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 50-57
PDF size: 209.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

In this very specific review about the quality criteria in the medical publication, it is intended that the editors, authors, readers and educators reflect critically about the quality that our medical publications must demonstrate, because we have the risk that they are not taken into account by health professionals interested in communicating their experiences; This leads to a loss in the country’s medicine since the purposes of those who generate and transmit knowledge will not have the assurance that the benefits of their research or proposal will reach patients. It is the responsibility of all those who in some way participate in the editorial processes to always seek quality, we can contribute to solve the health problems of our population and according to the scope of the published also a universal benefit.


REFERENCES

  1. MiyahiraHj. Criterios de calidad de las revistas científicas. Rev Med Hered, 2008; 19 (1): 1-4.

  2. Romero-Torres M, Acosta-Moreno LA, Tejada-Gómez MA. Rev Esp Doc Cient, 2013; 36 (1): e003. doi http:// dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.1.876

  3. Espinoza-Larrañaga F. Calidad de las revistas médicas y la evaluación de la productividad científica. Rev Med IMSS, 2010; 48 (6): 58-584.

  4. Wulff JL, Nixon ND, Quality Markers and use of electronic Journals in an Academic Health Sciences Library. J Med Libra Assoc, 2004; 92 (3): 315-322.

  5. Delgado, López-Cózar E, Ruiz-Pérez R, Jiménez-Contreras E. Criterios Med Line para selección de Revistas científicas, Metodológico e indicadora. Aplicación a las revistas médicas españolas en especial atención a las de salud pública. Rev Esp Sal Púb, 2000; 80 (5): 52-55.

  6. Chinoy MA, Ahrmad T, Tayyab M, Raza S. Evidenced bassed Medicine- where do articles published in local indexed journal stand. J Pak Med Assoc, 2009; 69 (1): 5-9.

  7. Gasparyan Ay, Yesirkepov M, Gerasimov An Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of atations and references by all Stakeholder of Science Comunication. J Korean Medsci, 2015; 30: 1545-1552.

  8. Benson PJ. Reader and author responsibility in understanding the limites of peer review. Ann R Cool Surg Engl, 2015; 97: 48-489.

  9. Galipern J. Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-syer S, Cobey K. et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of Biomedical Journal. BBC Medicine, 2016: 14- 16. doi 10. 1185/s 12916-016-056-2.

  10. Espinoza-Rosales F, Partida-Gaytán A, Tapia–Ponce C, Rivas- Zúñiga E. Barrera y Acciones para mejorar calidad e impacto de Acta Pediátrica de México. Act Pediatr Mex, 2017; 38 (2): 79-82.

  11. Machorro- Nieves A. Metodología LILACS, Criterios de Selección y Permanencia de Revistas. 1a. Reunión AMERBAC, abril de 2015. Cd. de México.

  12. Rivera H. Índice h, criterio necesario para la evaluación de investigadores. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Social, 2011; 49 (2): 123-124.

  13. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the Journal impact. Factor JAMA, 2006; 295 (4): 90-93.

  14. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de México (CONACYT). Resultados de la Convocatoria 2016. Fondo concursable de posicionamiento nacional e internacional de Revistas de Ciencia y Tecnología Editadas en México, Gob. Rep. Mexicana, 2016: 1-6.

  15. Sotelo-Cruz N. AMERBAC A. C. Impacto de los criterios de evaluación de las publicaciones y de la productividad científica en el desarrollo de las revistas biomédicas en salud mexicanas, marzo 1-3, del 2017. 17 CONGISP, Cuernavaca, Morelos. 1-3 marzo 2017.

  16. Gorin VS, Koroleva AM, Ovcharenco NA. The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) as a new trend in scientific editing and publishing in Russia. European Science Editing . (August) doi 10.20316/ESE.2016.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com