Recommendations for the ethical guidelines for publication of scientific studies: The responsibilities of editors, reviewers and the authors
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2021
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Elsevier Sci Ltd
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the role of anesthesiologist in the management of hydatid disease from the perspective of the editors, reviewers and the authors. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline database using the following keywords: (hydatid* OR echinococc*) AND (disease OR cyst) AND (anesthesiology). We have evaluated the authors, their institutions and department, and the aim of the studies. We also evaluated the studies published by anesthesiologists in terms of content. Results: The literature search showed 6344 articles published between February 2010 to 2021. Sixty-three had at least one anesthesiologist in the author list. Anesthesiologists were leading authors in 35 studies; and in 19 of them, all the authors were anesthesiologist. Sixteen (84.2%) of these articles defined the outcomes of surgical therapy and there was no information regarding anesthesia technique. Conclusion: The results of our study emphasize an important controversy regarding jurisdiction of different departments in terms of scientific research ethics. We believe that different disciplines can work together to evaluate a scientific problem and can publish a study in collaboration. But collaboration is very important and violating the subject of another field without collaboration is a deontological problem.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hydatid disease, Preoperative assessment, Postoperative management, Follow up, Surgeon's responsibility, Anesthesiologist's responsibility
Kaynak
Annals of Medicine and Surgery
WoS Q Değeri
N/A
Scopus Q Değeri
Q3
Cilt
72
