Our latest systematic review documents heterogeneity, poor reporting, and topics frequently presented in medical writing workshops. Another step toward evidence-based medical journalology. . @GuyattGH @TChanMD.

The first ever meta-analysis accompanied by a comprehensive systematic review of articles published on the impact of medical writing/publishing education. A move towards evidence based medical journalology. .#medicalwriting #publishing #metaanalysis

Filling the gap in evidence-based medical journalology; how to use a standard curriculum to teach medical writing and publishing and how to assess its effect using the first trustworthy measurement tool in this regard. Read the full text here:.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307681

RT @HEI_mcmaster: Join @CMAJ's @BehroozAstaneh this November at.@McmasterU and develop a clear understanding of what it takes to get your n….

the Abstract and Methods sections. Authors should provide the complete prompt used to generate the research results, with the time and date of the query, and details regarding the AI tool and its version. #medicalpublishing #medicaljournalology #ArtificialIntelligence.

generation of reviews and correspondence”. Furthermore, the new recommendation highlights the necessity of explicitly stating the usage of AI tools when presenting research findings, such as when generating tables or figures. This information should be included in both.

The WAME released its new recommendation on “Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts” today. This new recommendation emphasizes the importance for editors and reviewers to specify “to authors and each other, any use of chatbots in the evaluation of the manuscript and.

"Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.".

"the confidentiality of the manuscript, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers should disclose to journals if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review.".

Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to change the future of medical publishing. Likewise, peer review as an important component of medical publishing is going to be changed. In the newly released ICMJE recommendations, it is advised that "Reviewers must maintain".

ICMJE has modified the second criterion of its authorship criteria. The original phrase of “drafting the work or revising it for important intellectual content” has been changed to “drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content”.

RT @GuyattGH: #SampleSize calculations are a hoax. Sample sizes seldom approximate requirements to detect small important differences. True….

RT @Adibvira1: موسسه‌ی ادیب ویرا، فقط از پزشکان و دانشجویان سال آخر پزشکی که دارای توانمندی در نگارش مقاله به زبان انگلیسی در فیلدهای پزشکی….

RT @GuyattGH: This #BMJ recommendation from the #MAGIC group lets you know all the patient who don’t need (and may even be harmed) by oxyge….

RT @GuyattGH: LAST 2022 #McMaster #Evidence Based #Clinical #Practice Workshops (#EBCP)，SUNDAY, June 12th through FRIDAY, June 17th, 2022，W….

RT @GuyattGH: This recently published article on the ethics of #authorship includes justification of adding an author who makes an importan….

RT @GuyattGH: #Randomized #trial #evidence of (limited) impact of #mask-wearing on #COVID infection. .

Medical authorship has always been a matter of debate and an ethical dilemma. Check out the latest published article called "Biomedical Authorship: Common Misconducts and Possible Scenarios for Disputes" for updates on #authorship #Ethics #misconduct.