Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 2, Issue 11 | Pages 245 - 247
1 Nov 2013
Sprowson AP Rankin KS McNamara I Costa ML Rangan A

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 8 | Pages 531 - 533
1 Aug 2020
Magan AA Plastow R Haddad FS


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 263 - 268
1 Jun 2016
Yan J MacDonald A Baisi L Evaniew N Bhandari M Ghert M

Objectives

Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature.

Methods

Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (www.retractionwatch.com). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin.