O’Donohoe, Tom J., Dhillon, Rana, Bridson, Tahnee L., and Tee, Jin (2019) In reply: reporting quality of systematic review abstracts published in leading neurosurgical journals: a research on research study. Neurosurgery, 85 (2). E398-E398.

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only

Abstract

[Excerpt] To the Editor: We would very much like to thank Dr Vilanilam1 for adding their voice to our call for improved reporting of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals.2 By drawing attention to “categories” of abstract consumers, Vilanilam1 causes us to ponder the varied expected consequences that abstract quality has on different readers. They further extend upon our comments by identifying that abstracts often form the basis of preliminary decisions regarding acceptance, or, otherwise, of submissions for publication in scientific journals,3 and often constitute the only published record of a piece of research.4 When taken with the results of our study, these comments strengthen the rationale for a renewed focus on improving the reporting quality of neurosurgical abstracts.

Item ID:	63107
Item Type:	Article (Short Note)
ISSN:	1524-4040
Related URLs:	Organisation
Additional Information:	This article is available Open Access via the publisher's website.
Date Deposited:	11 Oct 2020 19:20
FoR Codes:	11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1103 Clinical Sciences > 110399 Clinical Sciences not elsewhere classified @ 50% 11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES > 1109 Neurosciences > 110999 Neurosciences not elsewhere classified @ 50%
SEO Codes:	92 HEALTH > 9201 Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions) > 920199 Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions) not elsewhere classified @ 100%
Downloads:	Total: 4
	More Statistics