MUNI Úvod do základů psaní odborného článku: příprava na psaní a redakční proces Jiří Kratochvíl Knihovna univerzitního kampusu 2 Dnes si řekneme... 1. proč se píší vědecké články 2. jak se připravit s ohledem na výzkum 3. o odevzdání článku a 4. redakčním procesu s odevzdaným článkem Proč se píší vědecké články 1. Přispět svým názorem do diskuse o vědecké otázce 2. Vzbudit zájem ostatních o výzkumnou otázku 3. Informovat o výsledcích svého výzkumu 4. Získat zpětnou vazbu 5. Legitimizovat výzkum 6. Doložit vědeckou aktivitu 7. Financování výzkumu THE EYDLUTIDN OF HCHDEMIH RjBLiSti AKiO Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Která aplikace dělá nejméně chyb v citacích. 5 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Ptají se mne, kterou aplikaci doporučuji. 6 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? 7 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Stanovení tématu Výzkumná otázka Který z citačních manažerů generuje nejméně chyb v bibliografických citacích? Pracovní název Srovnání správnosti bibliografických citací vygenerovaných citačními manažery EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks a Zotero pro vybrané citační styly 8 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Definování klíčových slov Comparison of the Accuracy of Bibliographical References Generated for Medical Citation Styles by EndNote, Mendeley, Název anglicky + klíčová slova RefWorks and Zotero Alternativní slova correctness, bibliographical citation, reference manager, citation manager, citation tool, citation generator Vyhledávací dotaz (accurac* OR correct*) AND bibliograph* AND (reference* OR citat*) AND (EndNote OR Mendeley OR RefWorks OR Zotero OR manager* OR tool* OR generat*) Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Specifikace vyhledávaných informačních zdrojů Datum vydání K manažerům max. 5 let, jinak všechny roky Typy publikací Všechno Jazyk dokumentu CZE, SLO, ENG Rozsah přístupu Všechno 10 Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Volba vyhledávače informačních zdrojů WoS Scopus Discovery Google Scholar 11 Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Organizace vyhledávaných informací Moje potřeba CitacePRO EndNote Mendeley Refworks Zotero Jaká je výše nákladů za pořízení/užívání aplikace? Je aplikace v desktopové nebo online verzi? Jak se připravit na výzkum a psaní Stanovení tématu a zhodnocení jeho přínosu Který problém chci řešit a o čem chci psát? Proč chci problém řešit? Co o problému vím a co chci zjistit? Organizace vyhledávaných informací Accuracy of References in Four Pediatric Nursing Journals Marilyn H. Oeimann, PhD, RN, FAAN Sarah L. Cummings, MSN, RN Nancy A. WiJmes, BS, MS, MSLS y prevent researchers frrjin examining all ohlicvoit by an author, and getting credit for Irieij1 work. This study determines the number and lypes of enoii iii references in nursing journals. OF The 190 references examined, 71 ei ihem contained cc edings of Mi E 2009, cd. K-P Adhissnig. B Blobd. J Mamas, I Musiť,pp, 91-95. Amsterdam. >TL-: IOS Pn;ss Prispí vek v online sborníkii s mŕnŕnež.í auLury príspevku domes Pľ r.apin T.V. c2ť><)<). Tlie Rnle-ofa \atinn-\VIde In formation System in Imnroi Access to Surgery in Portugal. Ihl Mectteat Informatics in a United and Hcahhy l Proceedings of MIH 2009, si. K-P Adlassnig, 13 IU obci, .1 Mamas, 1 Masic. pp. Amsterdam. Nl.: IDS Press. 1 ittp: lx M>k s. ío spre s a. n I -'"'puh I icat i o n -■' 12f»i) íl Přispívrk v {inline sborníku s vĺcť jak 3 autory příspěvku J-'oumd J. Sdiwarzingc-r M. Binqucl C, Bcnŕcjine L, Hill C. Quaiilín C. <-2009. Contribution uľ Record Linkage lo "Vilal Slulus DulĽirnnitUiijn in CaiiĽĽr Palienls. In: Medical Informatics i'} a United and íkalihy Europe. Frwesdiŕigi v/MIE 2009. al. K-P AíUusísiííľ, B Blobd. J" Manias, T Masíc, pp. 91-9í. Amsterdam, NL: TOS Press, lil.ip:/.'chools.i(!Sjtitss.til.:jMil)lieL:i1iori/1,2fi 12 TiM£n£ kniha s 1 autorem Sadler IW. 2012. Longman's si I [ealth/Lippincott Williams & Wilkin ydicu' embryology. Philadelphia: Welters Tištěná kniha s 2 autory Beauchiirap TL. Childress JF. 2(109. Principles University Press. 6lh ed. lislmú kniha s 3 anton Murray PIL Kotiayashí GS, Plall Louis: Mosby.2nd cd. ■ \I\. Rosciilliyl KS. 1994. Medical microbiology. Si. LITERATURE CITED (.lomes P, i apao IV. c.2.W). P.IUNT the role of a nation-wide info rnia.t ion system in improving Ihe access Lc > surgery in poring ill. In Medical informal!c>. in a United and Healthy Eunipc: Prwadirtg* ofMIE 2oti;j. the XX!hid International Congress ofthi: European He.deration for Medical infer,varies, eds. k Adlassnig. II 111oheL T VI auras, I Masic. 71-5. Amsterdam: TOS Press I'onrncl 1, SchwarzingcrM, Biiitpjct C, Bcnzeniiic L, Hill C, Quajitin C. c2uTO. PRIM' contribution of re-cord linkage to vital status determination in cancer patients. In Medical Informatics in ct United and Healthy Europe: Proceedings ofMJF. 2009. she XXIInd International Conyes.-. of •An? European Federation far Medical litjorxtatki.. eels. K Adlassnig, H Hlohe-I, J Mantis. I Mjisic. cH-5. Ajnsterdnm: IOS Press tiomc-s P. I.ypao I,V. 2009. DO I the role oJ"li milioti-widi; iiili)Ti-rialicwi syslcin in improving the access to singer/ in poitiigal. JLil Medical informatics in a United ami Jdealihy Europe: Proceedings of ME 2009. the XXlhid Tnterrwrioml Congress iff the European Federation for Medicul informatics. cJs. K Adhissnig, B Blobd, J Manias, I Masic, 71-5. Aniilcrdam: IUS Press Gomes P, Lapao I,V. c2009. TJRT, the role ola nalion-unde information system in impim ing llic access to sutgcrv in poilugul. In Medical lu for malic*, in a United and He.trftitv Europe: rrocecciin^s ofMIE 201)9. the XXttnd titt<-rfratiorii/l Cottgi-?M of the European Federation p>r Medical informatics, eds. K Adlassni& B Blohsl, .1 Manias. I M.i«; 71 -5. Amsk'rdam: IOS Press Pciirnel I, SdiHwingerM, Rinquet C. Ren^enine P., (Till C, Qntiutin C. C.2QW, DQI contribution nfrLcord linkage lo \'ili.il m Lit I us dclcTminaLnm m canccT piincnts. In Medical Informatics In a United and'I leaf thy Europe: Proceedings of MIE 2009. lite JCXihtd Iitrcriitttienal Ccwgws of the European Federation for Medical lnfor»tatfcs, eds. T< Adlassnig. B Blobek .1 Manias, I Masic, 91-5. Amsterdam: IOS Press I'onrncI 1, Schwarzinger M, liiLHinet C. Bcnzeniue L. Hill C, Qiiantin C. c2U09.1.'RL contribution of record linkage To vital status determination in cancer patients. In Medical Informatics in a United and Healthy Europe: Proceedings ofMJF. 2009. ibe XXIind International Uonwvs^ tfihe Eiuvpcan Federation lor .Medical litjbrmaik-'., cJs. K Adlassnig, \i LHobcl, J Mantas. 1 Masic. 91-5. Amsterdam: IOS Press SaJlťr TW. 20 i 2. Lun^man'n tnedku! embryoU'gy, Pliilaildphiti: Woke Health/Lippincod Williams &. Wilkíns. 383pp. 12th ed. ■i O & £síi:r.,. ílu Fl=s B r* H 7*-*" ' *v p f, r u.m.o,.^, = = = H I'Ssiouitiarovivatnaslfrf •] tig. % col »j ''r. "y p dokumentu 'ipivek t itcrótr jborr ku : Chvbv v Interpunkci 1 Lhv'jó. c :k':tk; p;go; pŕod CrivsĚ IclURL/DOI. 1 Lhv'jó. c :k':tk; p;go; pŕod fkyně iri URI/nflI. Chybné formátováni porotce'~irri ciímcny. N;:ov p ŕ :.pŕvku ; rr; yir Názcv pnspčvku s malými rsa naulc. Cľivbná i^terpurkce i; ran na«íc. Ľhvbná interpunkce íe Cliyje'idUR.L/DOI. 0 Udaj o -ozm-iu stran Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu UNI ANNUAL REVIEWS OF IMMUNOLOGY - VZOR Příspěvek v tištěném sborníkj^^nějjějie^^^ujgi^^nsjjgvk Gomes P, Lapao LV. c2009^^^^^|^^^^^^^Wdri^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^^^^^^ Access to Surgery in Portuga^i^MecuccirinW Proceedings of MIE 2009, ed. K-P Adlassnig, B Blobel, J Mantas, I Masicj pp. 71-75. | Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press REFWORKS - ANNUAL REVIEW IMMUNOLOGY (1-20) LITERATURE CITED Gomes P, Lapäo LV. c2009. PRrNr^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m^^^^^m^™| improving the access to surgery in porR\gä^ffifle7!ic7tH^ Europe: Proceedings of MIE 2009, the XXIInd International Congress of the EuromiM^ Federation for Medical Informatics, eds. K Adlassnig, B Blobel, J Mantas, I MasiJ 71 -5 Amsterdam: 10S Press Typ dokumentu Počet chyb v Počet chyb v Počet chyb ve Chyby v údajích údajích interpunkci formátování Chyby v interpunkci Chybné formátování Příspěvek v tištěném sborníku s méně než 3 autory ru o ^ Chybějící zkratka pages před rozsahem stran. Název příspěvku s malými počátečními písmeny. Realizace výzkumu Sběr dat 31 EndNote Mendeley RefWorks Zotero Počet Počet Počet Celkem Průměr Počet Počet Počet Celkem Průměr Počet Počet Počet Celkem Průměr Počet Počet Počet Celkem Průměr chyb v C"i y 3 v chyb ve chyb ný chyb v ch y 3 v chyb ve chyb ný chyb v chyb v chyb ve chyb ný chyb v chyb v chyb ve C"i y 3 ný údajích interpu formát počet údajích interpu formát počet údajích interpu formát počet údajích interpu formát počet nkci ování chyb v citací nkci ování chyb v citací nkci ování chyb v citací nkci ování chyb v citací Annual Review of Immunology 34 13 4 3,0 27 5 2 2,0 25 15 4 2,6 44 0 5 49 2,9 Anticancer Research 27 19 7 53 3,1 14 12 4 30 1,8 28 22 4 3,2 16 21 4 41 2,4 Blood 35 3 1 39 2,3 48 0 4 52 3,1 40 4 4 48 2,8 46 4 4 3,2 EMC Cancer 47 34 30 r 6,9 42 34 29 105 r 6,6 -5 37 21 103 r 6,4 42 25 25 92 r 5,8 Investigative ophthalmology 33 15 4 53 3,1 23 12 4 39 2,3 64 8 5 4,5 10 0 0 10 0,6 JAMA 26 4 3 33 1,9 12 0 0 12 0,7 23 1 0 24 1,4 7 0 0 7 0,4 Journal of Clinical 25 7 16 49 2,9 21 2 13 41 2,4 45 30 33 5,4 14 6 18 38 2,2 Lancet 34 14 0 43 2,8 28 10 5 43 2,5 29 13 0 47 2,8 13 9 0 22 1,3 Nature Medicine 45 12 3 60 3,5 29 12 0 41 2,4 44 9 3,2 27 6 0 33 1,9 Nature Reviews Cancer 45 12 3 60 3,5 29 12 0 41 2,4 44 9 3,2 21 6 0 33 1,9 Nature Reviews Immunology 45 12 3 60 3,5 29 12 0 41 2,4 44 9 ■ 3,2 21 6 0 33 1,9 Nature Reviews Neuroscience 45 12 3 60 3,5 29 12 0 41 2,4 44 9 2 3,2 21 6 0 33 1,9 Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 45 12 3 60 3,5 29 12 0 41 2,4 44 9 2 55 3,2 21 6 0 33 1,9 New England Journal of 34 16 0 50 2,9 44 20 0 3,8 43 8 0 51 3,0 42 15 0 57 3,4 NLM style 44 4 0 2,8 15 0 0 15 0,9 19 15 0 2,0 6 0 0 6 0,4 Vaccine 44 3 0 47 2,8 39 0 0 2,3 45 27 • 4,2 34 0 0 34 2,0 CELKEM 509 193 80 r 882 52,3 458 155 55 r 679 40,3 626 230 81 r 937 55,5 409 110 56 r 575 34,2 PRŮMĚR 38 12 5 55 29 10 4 42 39 14 5 59 26 7 4 36 MEDIAN 40 12 3 55 29 12 0 41 44 9 2 55 27 6 0 33 Odevzdání článku Cover Letter - Cover Letter - Max. 3 odstavce - Zasazení do oboru - Podstata příspěvku - Předejít odmítnutí článku - Lze uvést recenzenty, kteří by měli/neměli recenzovat. Dear Mrs Dormer, We would like to offer our opinion piece "MDPT as a predatory publisher? Take a step back to see the big picture" for publication in Learned Publishing. It is a follow-up to our previous article "Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view" published in your journal and now we consider a credibility of the MDPI as a much-discussed publisher in the scholarly community. Our manuscript presents the synthesis of freely accessible information on how MDPI is viewed by the scientific community and the original findings on MDPI's publishing activity based on the records from InCites, MEDLINE PubMed or other resources, ((especially the original results of the analysis of the length of the peer review process may be of interest to the reader). We are convinced that our article can contribute to the MDPI discussion with an opinion based primarily on facts and, by its conclusion, encourage a more intensive discussion on changing the model of scientific publishing. Dear Mrs Dormer, we are aware of the article length (6,792 words) exceeding the requirements. It is caused by the accompanying texts (abstract, key points, keywords, and references). Without these parts the length of the manuscript is shortened to 4,366 words but then the critical overview would not be complete and the big picture in our research would be missing. We would very appreciate if you consider submission the manuscript despite of its length. For the sake of completeness, we would like to add that the article was proofread by a native English speaker. We all also declare that we have no conflicts of interest. We would be grateful if you would consider the submission of our text. Yours faithfully Jiří Kratochvíl, Petr Sejk, Lukáš Plch, Eva Koriťáková (Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic) 32 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu Odevzdání článku Redakční systém -Typ článku 33 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna ur The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 Home Reports Enter Manuscript Information Jiří Kratochvíl* I Log Qui I Help Upload Files Provide Additional Information Article Type: Select Article Type Review & Submit Enter Manuscript Information Select an article type from the dropdown list. Enter the required information into the fields that then appear. Guide for Authors Copyright © ZD 13 Elsevier BY i Terms of Use j Privacy Policy j About Us Cookies are set by this site. To decline or learn more, visit dut Cookies page. Odevzdání článku Redakční systém -Typ článku - Údaje o článku 34 liverzitního k <-)-» e fir ® A h11ps://www.evi&e,com/evi&e/face&/pages/submis5ion/Subnnission.jsp C Ů Q. Hledat ± in\ m = Enter Manuscript Information Provide Additional Information Article Type: Full Length Article Enter Manuscript Information Select an article type from the aroprJown list. Enter the required information into the fields that then appear. Review & Submit GuirJe for Authors Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports Compliance with ethical rules in biomedical QAjournals Abstract:* This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE. DOAJ. OAS PA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis oftheirwebsites their compliance with 14 criteria fortransparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penally points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE. DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 C57.5%> journals received 6 points or less and 110 C4-2.5%> journals 7 or more points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals}, affiliation of editorial board members [116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99) The research shows that JCR cannot be used as awhitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. Taxonomy:* Add minimum of 2 AND maximum of 6 topics Keywords:1* Keywords should be separated by semi-colons, e.g. capillar,1 electrophoresis; liquid chromatography. Odevzdání článku Redakční systém -Typ článku - Údaje o článku - Nahrání souborů 35 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna;-ujiiverzitního k CD A https://www.evise.com/evise/(ace5/pages/subnnÍ5sion/Subnnission.jsp O Ů Q, Hledat 4; lll\ ED = The Journal of Academie Librarianship Enter Manuscript Information Provide Additional Information Review a Submit Guide for Authors Jiří Kratochvík Logout I Help £^15^' Upload Files Click Upload Files to select and upload submission files. • Check the assigned File Type for each submission file and edit if needed. • Select a File Type if none has been assigned. Mandatory File Types are indicated in the drop-down list. • Click Order Files to automatically update the File Order as required by the journal. • Manually update the order of files of the same type, e.g. Figures or Tables, if needed. • Click Save to preserve the new order before proceeding. • The Manuscript File size should not exceed 150MB. • The total size of your submission files must not exceed 700MB. LaTeX Instructions: Upload all LaTeX files as a single zfp ffle and select Manuscript as the File Type OR upload a PDF with File Type Manuscript alongside a bundled zip of your all LaTeX flies with File Type LaTeX Source Fife. See ouri so b -■- issio; ■ auctions for more information. Data Visualization: Include interactive data visualizations in your publication and let your readers interact and engage more closely with your research. Follow the instructions here to find out about available data visualization options and bow to include them with your article. Click Save & Continue to proceed to the next step. Upload files j | Order files I File Order vio data to display, |: File Type Description Download File Order Files Save Share your research data (Optional) In this section, you can make your research data available with your article. Sharing research data helps other researchers evaluate yourflndings, and increases trust in your article. Research data can include, (but is not limited to): raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods and materials. Please cite your research data within your article, consult your journals Guide for Authors for instructions. The following options are available; Odevzdání článku Redakční systém -Typ článku - Údaje o článku - Nahrání souborů - Potvrzení Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna3©iiverzitního kar c tit © A https:/A™w.evise.conn/evi^e/feces/pagez/subnnis^ion/Subnni^zion.jsp O Ů O. Hledat 4; niv El = Enter Manuscript Information ^ Upload Files Provid&Additional Information Reviews Submit Guide for Authors Provide Additional Information Choose Editor' Elizabeth Blakesley ^ References: Scholarly Publishing. http:/toww.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice Accessed 10 December 2017. 44. WAME. (2016, May 12). WAME Professionalism Code of Conduct. http:/Akwwwame org/wame-professionalism-code-cf-conduct Accessed 10 December2017 45. Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS ONE. 11(1). https:Wdoi.orgJ10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 Accessed 18 May 2017 +6. Yessirkepov, M., Nurmashev, B.. & Anartayeva, M. (2015). A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(12), 1915-1919. https://dci.org/10.3346 flkms.2015.30.12.1915 Accessed 23 Hay 2017. Funding acknowledgement Please confirm that you have acknowledged all organizations that funded your research, and provided grant numbers where appropriate.' funding sources have been acknowledged. Publishing Open Access In addition to publishing subscription content, this journal also publishes Open Access articles, which both subscribers and the general public may freely access and reuse. Publishing Open Access is optional. If the article is published Open Access, a fee is payable by the author or research funderto cover the costs associated with publication * OI wish to publish this article Open Access if it is accepted ® I do not wish to publish this article Open Access. This journal has a double-blind reviewing policy. Please ensure that your name, affiliation details, and any other identifying information appears only on the title page and covering letter, which cannot be seen by reviewers. Have you removed all identifying information from the manuscript file and uploaded your title page as a separate file?* 0 I have uploaded my title page separately and removed all personal identifiers from the manuscript. lis Save I Saue ft Continue Copyright© 2013 Elsevier B.V. f Terms ofUse | Privacy Policy | AbcutUs Cookies are set by this site. ~c ne or learn more, visit our Cookies page. v "Blind Manuscript (No Author Identifiers) Click here to view linked References Odevzdání článku Redakční systém -Typ článku - Údaje o článku - Nahrání souborů - Potvrzení - Kontrola Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna;-ujiiverzitního kampusu Comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for medical citation styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero 33 34 35 36 4 5 46 59 60 Abstract Bibliographical references to online and printed articles, books, contributions to edited books and web resources generated by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero were compared with manually written references according to the citation instructions in 15 biomedical journals and the NLM citation style. The fewest mistakes were delected in references generated by Zotero for 11 journals and the NLM style, while the second fewest number of mistakes was found in Mendeley. The largest number of mistakes for 9 journals was found in references generated by EndNote and in the other 4 journals the largest number of mistakes was detected in RefWorks references. With regard to the individual types of resources, the lowest number of mistakes was shown by Zotero, while RefWorks had the greatest number of mistakes. All programs had problems especially with generating the URL and the date of access in the reference to online documents. It was also found that several mistakes were caused by technical limitations of the reference managers, while other mistakes originated due to incorrect setting of the citation styles. A comparison showed that Zotero and Mendeley arc the most suitable managers. Introduction Bibliographical references arc an integral part of all scientific publications. However, dieir authors constantly struggle with generating them and repeatedly make mistakes in creating them. These mistakes should not be treated lightly, because they may lead the reader to doubt the quality of the author's research; the author might also have shown the same carelessness hi the references in the following parts of the article or in the research itself (Biebuyck, 1992). In the past, some authors have been revealed to have mentioned sources in the list of references which they had not read. Some authors have also brought over incorrectly formatted bibliographical references from different articles (Cronin, 1982: Garfield, 1990: Sweetland, 1989; Wyles, 2004), As a result, not only the reputation of the authors but also the reputation of the journals can suffer when poorly produced articles featuring mistakes are published (Spivey & Wilks, 2004). Mainly the cited authors and the cited journals are affected. Indexing these authors in citation databases can become more complicated or even impossible due to such mistakes (Garfield, 1990). The causes of mistakes in references can vary. Apart from unethical ways of citing as mentioned, mistakes have also been reported for decades now to have been caused by mere carelessness and the authors' inconsistent writing (Bahar ct al., 2012; Dc Laccy, Record, & Wade, 1985; Lok. Chan, & Martinson, 2001; Oermann, Cummings, & Wilmcs. 2001). The blame lies with the journals themselves, because they do not contain very detailed citation instructions for authors. They may also refer to already invalid versions of the citation styles or they do not give any citation styles at all (He l.ac-ey et ah, 1985; Onwuegbuzie, Hwang, Combs, & Slate, 2012). Another reason for errors is the existence of too many citation styles where the authors cannot be sure what the best approach is (Lru> 1993; Moorthy, 1988; Park. Mardis,&Ury, 2011). Standardisation of reference rules could provide a way out of this situation (Freimer & Perry, 1986: Garfield, 1990: Mansfield, 1984; Sweetland, 1989; Terbille, 1990). However, the situation in medical journals shows the reverse. Despite the Uniform Requirements for Redakční proces Typ recenzního řízení DOUBLE BLIND SINGLE BLIND OPEN 38 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Redakční proces Délka recenzního řízení Autor: odevzdání článku Editor: vrátit, nebo recenzent? Editor: který recenzent? Recenzenti: accept minor major reject Editor: rozhodnutí 39 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu Březen po út st Čt pá so ne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Duben po út st Čt pá so ne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Květen po út st Čt pá SO ne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Redakční proces Od Elizabeth Blakesley @ ^Odpovědět ^ Odpovědět vsem v Preposlat ^Archivovat (£) Nevyžádaná posta ©Smazat Více v Komu Jiří Kratochvil @ 23.07.20160:13 P red m ět You r S u bm ission / Ms. Ref. No.: DACALIB-D-16-00097 Title: The comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for medical citation styles by the EndlMote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero The Journal of Academic Librarianship Dear Dr. Dirí Kratochvíl, The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments. ***Please note that reference style for the Journal recently changed to APA style. Therefore, if you paper is not currently in APA style, please make this change. Complete instructions are available on the Guide for Authors (http://www.elsevier.com/journals/the-journal-of-academic-librarianship/8099-1333/guide-for-authors#68909). 40 Příprava vědeckého článku If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please also: a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments Redakční proces Od Elizabeth Blakesley 1 Komu Jiří Kratochvil © Předmět Your Submission §í Odpovědět ^ Odpovědět všem v tf§ Preposlat ^ Archivovat Nevyžádaná posta © Smazat Vice v 23.07,20160:13 2. Method: It is very clear how the journals which are focused on were chosen, although less so about why the specific types of references tested (other than purely for variety) were selected. As stated on pg. 12, lines 43-44 "the tests include the types of publications which are not often cited in medical journals," and thus some of the choices feel superfluous. In Table 1, which illustrates the number and type of mistakes made by each rererence manager per journal, my only suggestion is thac the columns denoting the total errors for each type of mistake would make more sense at the end of the rows rather than the beginning. 3. Results and Discussion: This section thoroughly compares the different citation managers and the supporting tables/figures help illustrate the findings well. This section also does a great job at pointing out various reasons why errors may occur (pgs. 10-11), however, the content of both sections is sometimes marred by unclear writing. 41 Příprava vědeckého článku 4. References: Good variety, but four of the links provided did not work and one was incomplete, and thus did not lead to the correct page (p. 16, line 49; p. 17, lines 13-14, 49-59; p. 18, line 16 and 58). The topic of this article is definitely of importance to academic librarians, as Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům - Oba vytkli stejnou věc? Mají pravdu! I když... 42 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům - Oba vytkli stejnou věc? Mají pravdu! I když... 1. The first version of paper was accepted by one reviewer^ two others requested a minor revision^ the fourth reviwer requested a major revision. Now both reviewers request a major revision. Did my corrections to the first draft made the paper worse than before? I do not understand how this happened. Hello Dirij That is confusing. Please let me look at it more thoroughly. When I saw major revision by the reviewers, I accepted their opinion without looking further. Could you please send me the original file? I am likewise rather concerned about the discrepancies between the reviews. Thank you for letting me know about your concerns. I may need to be more diligent in my processes. Thanks, I Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům - Oba vytkli stejnou věc? Mají pravdu! I když... - Myslíte si, že vám křivdí? Pište srozumitelně! 44 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům - Oba vytkli stejnou věc? Mají pravdu! I když — Myslíte si, že vám křivdí? Pište srozumitelně! ■slat H Archivovat (ň Nevyžádaná pošta @ Smazat Vfcev - Nerozumíte připomínce? Nechejte si ji vysvětlit. 10.02.20Z0 14:26 9-Dec-0117 [email ref: DL-SW-2-a] Pippa Smart, Learned Publishing 45 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampdisu ,„ 1 (S> Learned Pubhsh Hi Sorry, this was referring to Table 1 which appears on p.26/27 on the PDF that our system creates and the PDF had a problem with the table layout which caused the reviewer confusion, so you can ignore these comments - I should have spotted this, my apologies! Pippa Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům - Oba vytkli stejnou věc? Mají pravdu! I když... - Myslíte si, že vám křivdí? Pište srozumitelně! - Nerozumíte připomínce? Nechejte si ji vysvětlit. - Korespondovalo téma článku s tématem časopisu? 46 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Redakční proces Pár rad k obdrženým posudkům Point 2, Round 2: A systematic review presents descriptive evidences without statistical analysis. However, the meta-analyzes, beside to have descriptive evidences, also provide a quantitative review through statistical techniques. Therefore, a meta-analysis is a more complex study than a systematic review. Furthermore, your study groups a number of 13 articles, however, the study number 1 (DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0617-7) groups 28 studies, beside 22 time to exhaustion studies and 8 graded-exercises test studies. Thus, this study already published (DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0617-7) is more original, complete and of higher quality. Sorry, but I do not consider your systematic review relevant for publication in this journal, mainly because there are already published works with this topic. The authors should have carried out a first search to check if the topic they wanted to work on was already done. 47 i i ipi civet vcucorvci i u oiai irvu i \w m iu vi\a ui n vci z_iu in iu rva 11 ijju.su IUI V III X Redakční proces Revize článku Responses on reviewers' comments All changes are highlighted with the yellow color in the revised draft: Introduction 1) Information about analyzed journal issues were added (p. 2). 2) In the part Introduction the paragraph with detailn information about technical aspects of the reference managers was excluded and substituted by short information (p. 2) advising a detail discussion in the part Discussion. The detail discussion in the part Discussion (p. 12-13) has not been changed because with the results found in the study it offers a comprehensive overview of the quality of reference managers. Method: I 1) A reasoning of testing various types of documents was added (p. 2 and 13), 2) Columns „ Total errors" were moved at the end of each reference manager part in the tables 1 a 2. Currently column order for each reference manager in the tables 1 a 2 is: Data, Punctuation, Formatting, Average, Total Errors. Other adjustment of the table is impossible because of the range of data. For better orientation the total errors is now written with boldface. 3) An example of comparison of references was added (p. 4). 4) Information about versions dates was not added because it suggests from the first sentence of the part Method (p. 3, „Between December 2015 and January 2016). 5) An information about writing titles in capital/case sentence etc. was added to the second paragraph in the part Method (p. 3). 48 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu 15 16 17 18 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4 5 46 47 48 4 9 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Method Between December 2015 and January 2016 the quality of bibliographical references generated for ] 5 medical journals and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) citation style by the reference managers EndNote (version X7.4, Bid 8818). Mendeley (version 1.15.2), RefWorks (version 4.4.1376) and Zotero (version 4.0.28.10) were compared. The journals (see Tabic 1) were chosen in the following way: the ten medical journals with the highest number of published articles in Journal Citations Reports in 2014 were added to the ten medical journals with the highest impact factor in Journal Citations Reports in 2014. These journals were chosen either because of the need for the medical authors to publish their articles in the most-referred journals or because the journals publish a high number of articles and therefore a large number of authors work with these journals' reference instructions, from these 20 journals, the following 5 titles were then excluded: CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Molecular Medicine Reports, Oncology Letters and Oncotarget. This was done because in some citation managers it was not possible to generate the bibliographical references for these journals. The NLM style was added to these 15 journals for comparison. The format and how to adhere to NLM was agreed on by the editors of medical journals (ICMJE, 2015; Patrias, 2007). In this way. a list of journals and the NLM reference styles was created. The authors of medical journals very often follow these instructions. Once the choice of the journals and the reference styles was made, the publications representing the commonly-mentioned types of print or online resources were chosen. As Ilomol (2014) pointed out, an analysis of other sources is needed. Although journal articles are and will probably continue to be the most frequently cited type of resources, various studies show that 16.5% of 81,834 references published in ten medical journals were to sources other than an article (Barrett, Helwig, & Neves, 2016; Delwiche, 2013: Rethlefsen & Aldrich, 2013). Therefore, references for various types of resources were tested in this study. These types were a journal article, a contribution to an edited book, a book, an edited book and a web resource. In addition, in the case of a journal article, a contribution to an edited book and a book, publications with different numbers of authors were also chosen. In the case of a journal article, a contribution to an edited book and a book, publications were chosen with different numbers of authors so that it could be verified whether the reference manager is able to generate the number of authors' names determined by the journal style. In this way, 17 publications (Table 2) were chosen. Bibliographical references were manually created Redakční proces 49 Přijetí článku Odpovědět Odpovědět všem v s$ Přeposlat Archivovat Ô Nevyžádaná pošta Smazat Vice v <3 Od Elizabeth Blakesley Komu J iff Kratochvil @ P red m ět You r S u bm issiori 0S.09.Z016 ll\32 Ms. Ref. No.: JACALIB-D-16-00097R1 Title: Comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for medical citation styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero The Journal of Academic Librarianship Dear Dr. Jiří Kratochvíl, I am pleased to inform you that your paper "Comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for medical citation styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero"jTa^beej^cre^ted^o^ubTjMtíon^ in The Journal of Academic Librarianship.Your accepted manuscript will now be transferred to our production department and work will begin on creation of the proof, If we need any additional information to create the proof, we will let you know. If not, you will be contacted again in the next few days with a request to approve the proof and to complete a number of online forms that are required for publication. Below are comments from the editor and reviewers. When your paper is published on ScienceDirect, you want to make sure it gets the attention it deserves. To help you get your message across, Elsevier has developed a new, free service called AudioSlides: brief, webcast-style presentations that are shown (publicly available) next to your published article. This format gives you the opportunity to explain your research in your own words and attract interest. You will receive an invitation email to create an AudioSlides presentation shortly. For more information and examples, please visit http://www.elsevier.com/audioslides, UNI Redakční proces 50 Konečne úpravy Soubor Úpravy Zobrazit Historie Záložky Nástroje Nápověda Í5 Jak citovat: citačnľ: X Q Predplatné na 1022 X t Můj disk-Disk Goc X Q Fond FaF - e-prezen X Odhlašuji... I Jednoť X H Inet MU: Smlouvy Q Online Proofing Sy: X O ťat OS h1tt3s://wiley.eproofng.in/Praof.aspx;tok:en = b09S07SOB11 e4d38858c7e72e4de961 8153917591 90% £f íSlSMU Sf: Překladač Google OFBKUK Googletranslate QA9úklid ||i Soubory ||| SQL pro velkou dávku S EED H EED přehled ů GroupFiles-kratec@u... (HI BAN ÚVT |; Mayer 3 Cite Right S> Í lll\ © X + Proof Initiated Correspanding Au-thor Production Editor ORIGINAL ARTICLE Query Response Citation rules through the eyt Jin Kratochvíl1 * 0 | Helga Abrahámova 1 University Campus Library, Masaryk University Corresponding author Jiří Kratochvíl University E-mail: kratec@ukLrnunLcz Abstract Update Cancel AQ3: "AUTHORj Please check and confirm that short title is OK as typeset." B I U >i fi' This research analysed the citations styies used in 1,100 high-impact biomedical journals and the importance attributed by their editors and other members of the editorial office to individual reference components, the citation format and method. We found 70(5.5%) use the current American Medical Association or NLM/Vancouver style; 425 (39.2%) use their older versions or a variation; 73 (6.7%) use a standard non-biomedical style; and 432 [39.9%) have their own house styie. According to 125 respondents who answered the survey, the most important reference rg/10.1001 /j a m a. 1344.52 S5 55SO055O23 | Zvýraznit vše Q Rozlišovat velikost Q Rozlišovat diakritiku Q Celá slova » CD Ostatní záložky « tt .# Help Attach Files Save Submit Saved at 11/11/2021 5:36:32 PM(UTC) Journal & Article Information AQ1:"AUTHOR: Pleasecheckand confirm that corresponding information is OK as typeset." B" It is correct. AQ2: "AUTHOR: Please checkand confirm that article title is OK as typeset." G" It is correct. AQ3: "AUTHOR: Please checkand confirm that short title is OK as typeset." Answer AQ4:" AU THOR: PI ease ch eck if (J nk to ORCID is correct." Comments (1) Image Comments (0) UNI Redakční proces Vydání postprintu ACALlB-01779; No. of pages: 10; 4C: The Journal of Academic Librarians hip xxx (2016) xxx-xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Journal of Academic Librarianship ELSEVIER Comparison of the Accuracy of Bibliographical References Generated for Medical Citation Styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero Jiří Kratochvíl Mosaryk University Campus Library, Brno, Czedi Republic 51 ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 2S April 2016 Received in revised form 18 August 2016 Accepted 8 September 2016 Available online xxxx KEYWORDS: Accuracy Bibliographical references Citation styles EndNote Medical journals Mendeley Reference managers RefWorks Zotero ABSTRACT Bibliographical references to online and printed articles, books, contributions to edited books and web resources generated by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero were compared with manually written references according to the citation instructions in 15 biomedical journals and the NLM citation style. The fewest mistakes were detected in references generated by Zotero for 11 journals and the NLM style, while the second fewest num-ber of mistakes was found in Mendeley. The largest number of mistakes for 9 journals was found in references generated by EndNote and in the other 4 journals the largest number of mistakes was detected in RefWorks references. With regard to the individual types of resources, the lowest number of mistakes was shown by Zotero, while RefWorks had the greatest number of mistakes. All programs had problems especially with generating the URL and the date of access in the reference to online documents. It was also found that several mistakes were caused by technical limitations of the reference managers, while other mistakes originated due to incorrect setting of the citation styles. A comparison showed that Zotero and Mendeley are the most suitable managers. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. UNI Redakční proces Vydání postprintu The Jo Comparison of the Accuracy o Medical Citation Styles by Enc Jiří Kratochvíl Masaryk University Camr. ARTICLE Library, Brno. Czedi Republic N F 0 article iustory: Received 26 April 2016 Received in revised form 18 August 2016 Accepted 8 September 2016 Available online xxxx 52 KEYWORDS: Accuracy Bibliographical references CiHtion styles EndNote? Medical journals Mendeley PřípravaXylcIecl^ého článku / Knihovn Zotero genei cordi were bero gene i erenc MUSE tingf Thejoumalof AcademicLibrarianship43 (2017) 57-66 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Journal of Academic Librarianship ELSEVIER Comparison of the Accuracy of Bibliographical References Generated for Medical Citation Styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero Cross Mark Jiří Kratochvíl Masaryk University Campus Library, Brno, Czech Rq^nbiic ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 26 April 2016 Received in revised form IS August 2016 Accepted S September 2016 Available online 15 September 2016 KEYWORDS: Accuracy Bibliographical references Citation styles EndNote Medical journals Mendeley Reference managers RefWorks Zotero ABSTRACT Bibliographical references to online and printed articles, books, contributions to edited books and web resources generated by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero were compared with manually written references according to the citation instructions in 15 biomedical journals and the NLM citation style. The fewest mistakes were detected in references generated by Zotero for 11 journals and the NLM style, while the second fewest number of mistakes was found in Mendeley. The largest number of mistakes for 9 journals was found in references generated by EndNote and in the other 4 journals the largest number of mistakes was detected in RefWorks references. With regard to the individual types of resources, the lowest number of mistakes was shown by Zotero, while RefWorks had the greatest number of mistakes. All programs had problems especially with generating the URL and the date of access in the reference to online documents. It was also found that several mistakes were caused by technical limitations of the reference managers, while other mistakes originated due to incorrect setting of the citation styles. A comparison showed that Zotero and Mendeley are the most suitable managers. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. UNI Co nedělat - Zákaz fabrikace či falšování dat - Neuvádějte mezi autory, kdo se na článku nepodílel - Neposílejte text do více časopisů najednou - Nezveřejňujte text před jeho vydáním - Neposílejte text bez přepracování jinam 53 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu IlUNl Děkuji za pozornost 54 Příprava vědeckého článku / Knihovna univerzitního kampusu □ □ □ UNI