Murat Cehreli

Publications of Murat Cehreli

• Trick or treat?

  Authors: Murat Cehreli, Zafer Cehreli, Thomas Stamm, Ulrich Meyer, Hans-Peter Wiesmann

  Head & face medicine. 02/2007; 3:22.

  The purpose of this article is to draw attention to current transgressions in scientific writing and to promote commitment to ethical standards and good science. All participants of any researchThe purpose of this article is to draw attention to current transgressions in scientific writing and to promote commitment to ethical standards and good science. All participants of any research project, particularly under interdiciplinary team approach, should not only play an active role on the management and carrying out of their study but also ensure that their study is not fraudulent. Manuscript fabrication, data and/or figure manupilation, piracy (plagiarism), sloppy research, and transgressions in authorship are reasons for loss of scientific value and records, retraction of articles, and application of a variety of sanctions.

• A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.

  Authors: Thomas Stamm, Ulrich Meyer, Hans-Peter Wiesmann, Johannes Kleinheinz, Murat Cehreli, Zafer C Cehreli

  Head & face medicine. 01/2007; 3:27.

  BACKGROUND: Head & Face Medicine (HFM) was launched in August 2005 to provide multidisciplinary science in the field of head and face disorders with an open access and open peer review publicationBACKGROUND: Head & Face Medicine (HFM) was launched in August 2005 to provide multidisciplinary science in the field of head and face disorders with an open access and open peer review publication platform. The objective of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of submissions, the effectiveness of open peer reviewing, and factors biasing the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. METHODS: A 1-year period of submissions and all concomitant journal operations were retrospectively analyzed. The analysis included submission rate, reviewer rate, acceptance rate, article type, and differences in duration for peer reviewing, final decision, publishing, and PubMed inclusion. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, regression analysis, and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: HFM received 126 articles (10.5 articles/month) for consideration in the first year. Submissions have been increasing, but not significantly over time. Peer reviewing was completed for 82 articles and resulted in an acceptance rate of 48.8%. In total, 431 peer reviewers were invited (5.3/manuscript), of which 40.4% agreed to review. The mean peer review time was 37.8 days. The mean time between submission and acceptance (including time for revision) was 95.9 days. Accepted papers were published on average 99.3 days after submission. The mean time between manuscript submission and PubMed inclusion was 101.3 days. The main article types submitted to HFM were original research, reviews, and case reports. The article type had no influence on rejection or acceptance. The variable 'number of invited reviewers' was the only significant (p < 0.05) predictor for rejection of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: The positive trend in submissions confirms the need for publication platforms for multidisciplinary science. HFM's peer review time comes in shorter than the 6-weeks turnaround time the Editors set themselves as the maximum. Rejection of manuscripts was associated with the number of invited reviewers. None of the other parameters tested had any effect on the final decision. Thus, HFM's ethical policy, which is based on Open Access, Open Peer, and transparency of journal operations, is free of 'editorial bias' in accepting manuscripts. ORIGINAL DATA: Provided as a downloadable tab-delimited text file (URL and variable code available under section 'additional files').