Quality of the Results Section of Original Dental Articles Published in National Farsi and International English Journals
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 32 No. 4 (2014),
25 October 2014
,
Page 222-227
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v32i4.24780
Abstract
Objective: Lack of scientific writing skills is one major problem encountered for publication of research results of Iranian scientists in accredited journals. As the result, many research projects or dissertation findings remain unpublished. This study aimed to assess the quality of writing of the “results” section of some original articles published in Iranian Farsi and international English journals.
Methods: This analytical, cross-sectional study was conducted on 64 dental articles published in 3 international English and 3 Iranian Farsi journals. Selection of journals was non-random but articles were selected randomly based on specific criteria. A checklist containing 32 criteria regarding general statistics, context of the results, statistical tests, tables, charts and graphs was prepared. Obtained data were analyzed by SPSS 10 using Fisher’s exact and chi square tests.
Results: Farsi articles met 64.1% and English articles met 65.8% of the checklist criteria. No significant difference was found in the quality of the results section of Farsi and English papers (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Most papers did not provide adequate details in the results section to help readers better comprehend the subject.
- English articles
- Farsi articles
- Quality of writing
- Results
How to Cite
References
Mansouri R. Scientific Development in Iran. 1st Ed. UNESCO National Commission Publication in Iran 1994; Chap 1-3: 10-100.
Clyde LA. Evaluating the quality of research publications: A pilot study of school librarianship. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 2004; 55: 1119-1130.
Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998; 317: 1181-1184.
Lee KP, Schotland M, Bachhetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA 2002; 287: 2805-2808.
Wang L, Li Y, Li J, Zhang M, Xu L, Yuan W, Wang G, Hopewell S. Quality of reporting of trial abstracts needs to be improved: using the CONSORT for abstracts to assess the four leading Chinese medical journals of traditional Chinese medicine. Trials 2010; 11: 75.
Narine L, Yee DS, Einarson TR, Ilersich AL. Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. CMAJ 1991; 144: 449-453.
Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of non- steroidal anti inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 31-56.
Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 426-432.
Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, Watanabe M, Suzumura EA, Duncan BB, Devereaux PJ, Cook D. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 387-392.
Hall GM. How to write a paper. 5th Ed. Wiley, Blackwell 2012; Chap 1: 9-11.
Wong HL, Truong D, Mahamed A, Davidian C, Rana Z, Einarson TR. Quality of structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 467-473.
Dupuy A, Khosrotehrani K, Lebbé C, Rybojad M, Morel P. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139: 589-593.
- Abstract Viewed: 208 times
- PDF Downloaded: 114 times