Better reporting of scientific studies: why it matters
- PMID: 24013839
- PMCID: PMC3754890
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001504
Better reporting of scientific studies: why it matters
Abstract
The PLOS Medicine Editors announce the launch of a Reporting Guidelines Collection to coincide with the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, to be held September 8–10, 2013, in Chicago.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Conflict of interest statement
The authors' individual competing interests are at
References
-
- International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Available: http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/index.html. Accessed 17 July 2013.
-
- PLOS Medicine (2013) Reporting Guidelines Collection homepage. Available: http://www.ploscollections.org/reportingguidelines
-
- Chalmers I (1990) Underreporting Research is Scientific Misconduct. JAMA 263 (10) 1405–1408. - PubMed
-
- von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Med 4 (10) e296 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 4 (10) e297 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources