Authors submission guidelines, a survey of pediatric dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the pattern of instructions regarding the ethical requirements given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals. MATERIAL &
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 'instructions for authors,' for analysis of guidelines on ethical processes, was done. Instructions to authors in journals of pediatric dentistry across the globe were reviewed for guidelines with regards to fourteen key ethical issues. Descriptive statistics were used, and results were expressed in percentages as well as numbers.
RESULTS: Of the 18journals of pediatric dentistry, all 14 ethical issues were covered by the instructions to authors in only three journals with only 50% of these providing clarity about authorship using ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, COI declaration was found to be present as mandatory in about 44% of the journals. 38.9% of the sampled journals mentioned guidelines on research misconduct, publication issues such as plagiarism, overlapping/fragmented publications, and availability of raw research data from authors. Guidelines on handling of complaints about editorial team was provided to authors by slightly over 33% of the selected pediatric dentistry titles while handling of complaints about authors and reviewers were mentioned in 16.7%and 55.6% of the journals respectively.
CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of Journals of Pediatric Dentistry did not provide adequate instructions to authors regarding ethical issues.

Introduction

Ethics in biomedical research and publications have always been a topic of deliberation. Ethical process of data collection and validation of clinical research carries great significance in scientific endeavors. Any inadequacy in following ethical principles during the conduct of a research and its reporting may affect the field of research and practice immensely. In order to formulate guidelines for transparent and ethical research conduct, the Declaration of Helsinki was formulated by the World Medical Association whichincluded32 principles covering informed consent, data confidentiality, vulnerable population and protocol requirement for conducting research and ethics committee approval [1]. These guidelines are revised periodically, and the most recent revisions took place in year 2013 suggesting the addition of five more principles which included use of placebo, post-trial provisions, trial registry, publication & dissemination of results and application of unproven interventions in clinical practice [2]. In association with World Health Organization, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in 2017 redefined “International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects” [3]. Recently in 2021, the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) also revised its extent of guidelines for carrying out experiments on animals [4]. These recommendations are developed to review best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and dissemination of research.

Reporting of research work in the form of publication in a peer reviewed journal is imperative for propagation of science as well as recognizing timely developments. International Council for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) too has updated the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals in the year 2019 [5]. These guidelines were developed to encourage researchers to publish scientific research with accepted and approved ethical criteria. The new changes also, provided useful insights to the editors with biomedical editing and publication process [6]. Some of the medical journals remain up to date about the amendments and accordingly revise the instructions to authors but few of them do not update the guidelines. The latter remain implicit on reporting policies about ethical principles and only mention that they follow ‘ICMJE Guidelines’. Mentioning of specific submission guidelines for authors on the journal websites and implied statements particularly on the ethical principles does not astound upon the authors to follow the established protocols.

The present group of authors in 2012 published a research that evaluated and compared author instructions in Indian and the British journals in the field of pediatric dentistry [6]. The study brought to light the lacunae in manuscript submission guidelines for the authors/researchers in the selected journals. However, after the recent amendments in ICMJE guidelines, in 2017, which recommend an active implementation of reporting guidelines in scientific journals, it becomes imperative to assess the inclusion of aforesaid reporting guidelines in author submission instructions of dental journals.

The aim of the present study was to assess the pattern of submission guidelines regarding the ethical issues given to authors in various pediatric dental journals.

Material & methods

Inclusion & exclusion criteria

Following databases were included to search all available titles in the field of pediatric dentistry:

PubMed/National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Web of Science

Scopus/Scimago

Index Copernicus

COSMOS

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

EMBASE

Pediatric dental journals cited in at least anyone of the above-mentioned databases were included. However, the journals that was discontinued or with irregular publishing was excluded. The screening of the journal names was performed in English language. Journals in non-english publishing language were also included in the survey if the instructions to authors were available in English. During journal search, textbooks, Practical reviews, and newsletters were also excluded.

Search strategy

A search strategy was planned in January 2021to find out the list of published journals in the specialty of pediatric dentistry across the world. Initially, the broad-based search was implemented individually with keywords: “Paediatric Dentistry”, “Pediatric Dentistry”, “Pedodontics” and “Dentistry for Children”. The country specific pediatric dentistry association websites were accessed through National Member Societies (NMS) of International Association of Pediatric Dentistry (IAPD) and searched for their official publication. Two authors (TW and GK) performed this search independently according to this predefined strategy. Then they shared their search lists and independently removed duplicates on their own and shared their search lists with the third author (JK) for cross checking. Only one difference was observed between both the searches which were resolved with dialogue between the three authors (JK, TW and GK) to have a finalized list. The authors could not be blinded at any stage of survey due to the design of study.

Retrieval of instructions to authors

After freezing the list of journals, instructions to authors were downloaded into computer by the two authors (GK and TW). The downloaded files were then shared for further analysis of instructions to authors.

The checklist for marking compliance was mainly used from the previous article of same authors [6] However, after reviewing the new guidelines, it was modified to evaluate the following fourteen parameters in each of the selected journal [5]:

For authorship- guidelines of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Conduct of study—Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or mention of reporting criteria for specific type of studied.

Approval from an institutional/independent ethics committee mandatory.

Details about requirement for obtaining informed consent and maintenance of confidentiality.

Mention about animal welfare.

Mandatory declaration of conflicts of interest (COI) by authors,

Mention about journal policies on publication issues (redundant, fragmented or overlapping publications, and plagiarism).

Mention about journal policies on any other research misconduct.

Mention about journal guidelines on handling of complaints about authors.

Mention about journal guidelines on handling of complaints about reviewers.

Mention about journal guidelines on handling of complaints about editorial team.

Mention about journal guidelines on handling of Authorship disputes.

Availability of raw data in case of trials which may require cross evaluation.

Copyright related issues.

Data entry about ethical issues

After carefully reading the instructions to authors for each journal, GK and TW entered the score into the MS Excel sheet based on the above-mentioned parameters. The authors also recorded additional findings and mentioned about adherence to some specific guidelines if any. Both authors also entered the impact factor (JCR 2020) for the included journals (for which it is available) (Table 1).

Table 1

List of included pediatric dentistry journals.

S. No.	Journal Name	Affiliation to Professional Association/society	Number of ethical principles mentioned in the submission guidelines to authors.	Impact factor
1.	European Archives of Pediatric dentistry	European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry	13	-
2.	European journal of pediatric dentistry	Italian Society of Pediatric Dentistry	3	2.231
3.	International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry	-	5	-
4.	International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry	International Association of Pediatric Dentistry	11	3.455
5.	International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation	-	7	-
6.	Interventions in Pediatric Dentistry Open Access Journal	-	2	-
7.	Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry	-	3	1.065
8.	Journal of Dentistry for Children	American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry	14	-
9.	Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry	Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry	6	-
10.	Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry	South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry	8	-
11.	OdontologiaPediaťrica	-	1	-
12.	Paidodontía	-	2	-
13.	Pediatric Dental Journal	Japanese Society of Pediatric Dentistry and The Pediatric Dentistry Association of Asia	12	-
14.	Pediatric Dentistry	American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry	14	1.874
15.	PesquisaBrasileiraemOdontopediatria e ClínicaIntegrada (Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry)	-	3	-
16.	RevistaLatinoamericana de ortodoncia y odontopediatría.	-	14	-
17.	Shōnishikagakuzasshi. The Japanese journal of pedodontics	Japanese Society of Pediatric Dentistry and The Pediatric Dentistry Association of Asia	12	-
18.	TaehanSoaChʻikwaHakhoe chi = Journal of the Korean Academy of Pedodontics.	Korean Academy of Pedodontics.	4	-

Cross check of data entered

The downloaded instructions to authors and scores entered against each parameter were then shared with JK and VM for cross check and verification. There were few opinion differences and were resolved by email exchanges and discussion. If policies/guidelines of a journal were not clearly mentioned, or the language was confusing for a particular parameter then it was considered as partial compliant.

Statistical analysis

The data was entered in Microsoft excel 2016 and analyzed descriptively using SPSS software (V 22.0).

Results

Initial screening of pediatric dentistry journals retrieved fifty-four national and international journals titles from the seven selected search databases. After removal of duplicate and discontinued journals, eighteen journals were included in the final list for this bibliometric study (Table 1). The detailed steps of literature search and results has been described in Fig 1. Out of 18 journals, instructions to authors were accessed from independent journal websites for 12 journals while instructions for two journals were available at the publisher’s website. Author guidelines for the remaining 4journals were retrieved from their society website. Only three journals, namely Journal of Dentistry for Children, Pediatric Dentistry and RevistaLatinoamericana de ortodoncia y odontopediatría covered all fourteen parameters related to ethical issues in the submission guidelines for authors. Out of 18, only 4 journals had an impact factor (Table 1). All these four journals had an impact factor of more than 1 (1.065 to 3.455).

Fig 1

Literature search methodology and results.

The various parameters included in the study have been defined descriptively in Fig 2. Two-thirds (14) of the journal’s mentioned reporting guidelines/criteria for conduct of the various study types, ethical approval from IRB/Ethics Review Committees and copyright related issues. About 16 Pediatric dental journals mentioned the clause for animal welfare and had an online form declaring the same available for download. Ethical constraints such as guidelines on authorship criteria were mentioned in the instructions provided by 9of the journals. Handling author disputes and raising complaints regarding peer-review process, necessity to obtain an informed consent and maintaining participant confidentiality were mentioned in 10of the included journals. Furthermore, COI declaration was found to be present as mandatory in about 8of the journals. Seven of the sampled journals mentioned guidelines on research misconduct, publication issues such as plagiarism, overlapping/fragmented publications, and availability of raw research data from authors. Guidelines on handling complaints about editorial team were provided to authors by only 6of the selected Pediatric dentistry titles. While handling complaints about authors and reviewers were mentioned in only 3 and 10 of the journals respectively.

Fig 2

Number of journals complying with each ethical principal.

Discussion

ICMJE has laid transparent ethical recommendations for scientific publications; however, the self-monitoring by the countries and scientific organizations with respect to these guidelines has not been well documented. Such reporting guidelines serve as important tools of reference for systematic ethical report writing. Therefore, these guidelines in form of instructions to authors must be present either in form of checklists, flowcharts, or simple texts on accessible portals of all scientific journals. Inconsistency in the submission guidelines and instructions to authors particularly in context of recent amendments [2-4] amongst various dental and medical journals led us to test whether inclusion of ethical issues is being followed by all published scientific journals in the subject of pediatric dentistry. In the previous study, the number of journals covered were limited to only two countries [6] (India and Britain) whereas the present study was planned to evaluate pediatric dentistry journals globally. The findings from the current study suggests that ethical principles as per the recent amendments by ICMJE and COPE are still not clearly defined in the pediatric dental journals that are presently in circulation.

Authorship policies have been evidently described by ICMJE to promote integrity and accountability in research. In the present study, 50% (9) of the journals didn’t mention authorship or contributor ship criteria in their author instructions. Our findings are concurrent with the results from a study conducted by Resnik DB and colleagues who found 63% of 600 journals sampled from Journal Citation Reports Database, had listed authorship policies. They also concluded that journals from the biomedical sciences and social sciences/humanities had more chances of having an authorship policy compared to the physical sciences, engineering, or mathematical sciences journals [7]. It becomes imperative for the journal editors to endorse multiple reporting guidelines to aid researchers in preparing specific type of research and improve research documentation in form of flowcharts as well as checklists. In the present study, only 3 of the selected eighteen pediatric dentistry journals were found totally compliant in reporting various types of manuscripts reporting guidelines. Previous published literature too has described suboptimal reporting by medical journals on various guidelines such as STROBE PRISMA, CONSORT etc. This signifies low endorsement of guidelines on the conduct of study and its types [8].

Furthermore, Article 23 of DoH (Declaration of Helsinki) has clearly defined the important role and function of research ethics committee or an independent institutional review board. It informs review of the scientific protocols before beginning any research involving human subjects. Also, Article 25 to Article 32 of DoH significantly explains the requirement of taking a patient informed consent before making the subject a part of a research [2]. In the current study, 14 out of 18 (78%) journals mentioned instructions about taking approval from Institute Ethics Committee or a Review Board before commencement of the study. These journals also mentioned to provide ethical reference number of approvals from respective ethics committee or requested a copy of the same. Similarly, 78% (14) of the included journals have explicitly mentioned in submission guidelines for authors to state an informed consent from participants. About 56% of the pediatric dentistry journals showed compliance with inclusion of animal welfare. Navaneetha, reported that only 45.2% (57/126) indexed international journals provided instructions to authors reporting ethical approval, 30% insisted upon taking an informed consent and only 26% mentioned about the animal welfare [9]. On the contrary, in the previous study conducted by the present authors, protection of human and animal welfare, informed consent and maintaining the confidentiality of the study subjects was reported higher upto80% in Indian dental journals and 70.3% in British dental journals [6].

As the health care professionals indulge themselves in unending research, in a race to publish maximum research articles, incidence of inappropriate research practices has been reported to be on increase [10,11]. It becomes essential to keep a check on misconduct in research or during its publication. ICMJE have published the best guidelines for refraining oneself from any misconduct for authors, reviewers, and journal editors. Areas of misconduct include plagiarism, redundant publication, data falsification/fabrication, authorship malpractices such as ghost authorships, gift authorships; non-disclosure of conflicts of interest by the authors, delayed publication, and salami publication [12]. Amongst all, Conflict of interest (COI) has been a critical parameter whose non-disclosure may lead to breach of scientific sanctity of a publication. In the present study COI was found to be mentioned in majority of instructions to authors section in eighteen selected pediatric dental journals. This was concurrent with the findings of a previous research that compared Indian and British dental journals [6]. Failure to disclose COI may lead to publication bias and affect the impact factor of reputed journals. However, Jiayi Zhu &Ji Sun (2019) reported that Chinese medical journals are not adequately emphasizing on declaration of Conflict of Interest (COI) [13]. This may be due to overemphasis on more important aspects of scientific learning such as plagiarism, multiple submissions, redundant publications etc. rather than disclosure policies. Sahni et al (2018) mentioned that almost all scientific journals ask for author’s copyright transfer to the publisher [14]. However, in the current study, almost two-thirds of pediatric dental journals surveyed have been found to have copyright transfer policy which is likely to reduce any future author- publisher issues. Availability of research raw data must be accessible to the readers to enhance the transparency of research; therefore, many journals demand the researchers to make their raw data accessible whenever required [15]. Nonetheless, in the current study, only one-third of pediatric dentistry journals asked for keeping raw research data in their instructions. The ICJME Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals has mentioned the availability of raw clinical data taking care of protection of patient privacy and maintaining confidentiality [16]. The transparent process of resolution of disputes and addressing complaint in the journal office are an important requirement in modern day science. It is expected that journals should declare their policies in a clear and transparent manner, however in the present study only a little over half of the journals (55%) have evidently mentioned it in their author guidelines.

The current study suggests that the essential constraints of ethical research conduction and publication are not mentioned completely within all the indexed/non-indexed pediatric dental journals as per the recent guidelines issued by ICMJE thereby highlighting the lacunae in transparent, precise, and worthy publications in scientific research. One of the limitations of this study was that it only focused on the presence of ethical constraints necessary for scientific research publication and not reflecting the overall editorial processes of the respective journals. In a wishful note, the international conglomeration of professional societies of pediatric dentistry should make their own elaborate guidelines for their journals covering ethical aspects and publication ethics with transparency and medical principles at the base.

Ethical issues such as ethical approval, informed consent, patient confidentiality; research misconduct is being covered in majority of pediatric dental journals in the current study.

Areas of data availability, author disputes, and complaint against authors, reviewers and editors are not being emphasized adequately in submission guidelines for authors in various pediatric dentistry publications.

Ethical issues regarding institutional review board, conduct of research as per guidelines, animal welfare and copyright issues have been sufficiently covered in these selected titles.

Although, when detailed instructions were not available for any of the ethical construct, the external link to international/national bodies governing the ethical issues were mentioned.

There is a need that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-18572

Survey of Submission Guidelines for Authors on Ethical Issues in Pediatric Dentistry Journals

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have to decide which terminology to use, and apply it through out the text, is it ethical requirements, guidelines or principles?

Title to be revised: Authors ethical issues submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals.

Aims: Missing from document, currently only in the abstract, thus to be added in the document.

Methods and Materials:

How was the checklist compiled, was it based on the ICJME document? Which references were used for? To add at page 6 line 111.

Was the checklist/ survey been validated priorly of doing the survey? What was the % of disagreement between the two evaluators? Was disagreement found mostly on one specific or several items of the check list?

Results

Raw results per Journal and per principle to be included either as Descriptive Table or as appendix.

Table 1, to add on an extra column the Impact Factor of the Journals, for those that it exists.

Table 2, could be graphically presented in a horizontal bar histogram for each item of the checklist, to make results easier to apprehend.

Additional analysis:

1) The check list could be grouped in 3 categories, by weight of contribution and then the results presented accordingly by histogram or pie chart.. Check list categories to be considered are: A=1 through 6, B=7-12, C=13,14.

This type of analysis will provide some weight on the ethical principles missing per journal.

2) The association of the Impact Factor IF on the ethical principles , to be investigated.

Conclusions: To be revised as an answer to the aim.

Reviewer #2: The present article deals with a very important and interesting issue and highlights the fact that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors. However, I believe that with some changes, it can be better presented. My detailed comments can be found in the attached file.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review PONE-D-21-18572.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Aug 2021

Reviewer #1:

Comment: The authors have to decide which terminology to use, and apply it throughout the text, is it ethical requirements, guidelines or principles? – submission guidelines as per Ethical Principals

Response: Author submission guidelines - used throughout and has been modified throughout the manuscript

Comment: Title to be revised: Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues

Response: Title modified (Lines 1 and 2)

Comment: Aims: Missing from document, currently only in the abstract, thus to be added in the document.

Response: Aims & Objectives added (Lines 73-74)

Comment: Methods and Materials: How was the checklist compiled, was it based on the ICJME document? Which references were used for? To add at page 6 line 111. Was the checklist/ survey been validated priorly of doing the survey?

Response: The checklist for marking compliance was mainly used from the previous article of same authors-Mathur VP, Dhillon JK, Kalra G, Sharma A, Mathur R. Survey of instructions to authors in Indian and British Dental Journals with respect to ethical guidelines. J Indian Soc PedodPrev Dent. 2013;31(2):107-112. Modifications were done in context with recent amendments in ICMJE guidelines- Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Reference added - line 105-107 and Lines 108-110.

Comment: What was the % of disagreement between the two evaluators? Was disagreement found mostly on one specific or several items of the checklist?

Response: Disagreement between evaluators were not tested as the findings were cross verified by a group of other two authors

Comment: Results - Raw results per Journal and per principle to be included either as Descriptive Table or as appendix.

Response: Raw results/ data entry may be shared only for perusal of editors and reviewers only

Comment: Table 1, to add on an extra column the Impact Factor of the Journals, for those that it exists.

Response: Added

Comment: Table 2, could be graphically presented in a horizontal bar/ histogram for each item of the checklist, to make results easier to apprehend.

Response: Figure 2 added

Comment: Additional analysis: 1) The checklist could be grouped in 3 categories, by weight of contribution and then the results presented accordingly by histogram or pie chart. Checklist categories to be considered are A=1 through 6, B=7-12, C=13,14. This type of analysis will provide some weight on the ethical principles missing per journal.

Response: The bar graph has been described which is self explanatory for individual ethical principles in Figure 2

Comment: 2) The association of the Impact Factor IF on the ethical principles, to be investigated.

Response: Calculating association is not possible as not all journals have an impact factor, however, it has been mentioned in table 1.

Reviewer #2:

Comments: SECTIONS - According to the submission guidelines of the journal, the major sections of the article should be as follows: ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION, MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS. Τhe “MATERIALS AND METHODS” section has been omitted. Please add this major section and use sub-sections for search strategy e.t.c. Please use the same format for the sections of the same level, as presented in the sample manuscript body included in the Journal Submission Guidelines.

Response: Appropriate sections have been mentioned with subsections in the Materials and Methods section. Abstract- line 17, Introduction- line 36, Aims & objectives - line 73, Materials and methods- line 75, Results- line 144, Discussion- line 183 and Conclusions- line 268.

Comments: ABSTRACT - The “Background” is not necessary according to the Journal Guidelines in the Abstract Session and it can be omitted. The Objective of the study must be clearly reported in a separate subsection. The 3 subsections of Settings and Design, Materials and Methods and Statistical Analysis can be included all in a single subsection “Materials and Methods.

Response: Headings in the abstract modified. Changes done lines 17 to 34

Comments: INTRODUCTION - In this section, the significance of the present study and the reason why the problem addressed is important are well presented. However, no reference is made to the existing literature or whether similar studies have been carried out. Ιt is not clear what is new that this study offers in the existing literature. Nor is the purpose of the study clearly stated. This information could be included in two additional separate paragraphs.

Response: The reason to conduct this study has been highlighted in the last para of introduction. Reference study mentioned. Changes from lines 66 to 74.

Comments: MATERIALS AND METHODS

(i) The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the Journals could be presented more clearly.

Response: Mentioned. Lines 76-90.

(ii) Was the authors' blindness to the Journal somehow ensured? If not, it must be mentioned.

Response: Authors could not be blinded due to the design of study. Lines 102-103

(iii) The statistical analysis performed should be reported at the end of this section in a separate paragraph.

Response: Mentioned. Lines 142-143

Comments: RESULTS – (i) Concerning the search results, a flow chart would provide more information and be more explanatory.

Response: Flowchart for search results added. Figure 1.

(ii) The results should be presented by absolute number too and not only by percentages.

Response: Results presented as absolute numbers in text. Lines 147-167

(iii) Table 1 or Table 2 could be presented as a bar graph instead of a table for better representation of the results graphically.

Response: Bar graph for table 2 added. Figure 2.

(iv) In the text, there is no need to mention the percentages of compliant Journals for all 14 principles, as these are shown in the table. However, the emphasis should be given mainly to the most or least frequent ethical principles not mentioned in the Pediatric Dentistry Journals.

Response: Results presented as absolute numbers in text. Lines 157-171.

Comments: DISCUSSION – (i) This section is well written, and all aspects are analyzed correctly. In the second paragraph, reference citation “7” is repeated and a citation is missing at the end of this paragraph.

Response: Reference 7 deleted; reference 8 added at end of this paragraph. Line 211

Comments: CONCLUSIONS – (i) Line 259 Please start with a new sentence “…Ethical issues…” (ii) It would be preferable and more readable if you could present the conclusions using bullets instead of a single paragraph.

Response: Started with desired line. Conclusion presented in bullets. Lines 269-279.

Comments: TABLES - Please use the same format for table titles, as follows: “Table 1. This is the Table 1 Title.”

Response: Format corrected. Line 176

Comments: REFERENCES – (i) Please cite references in brackets (for example, “[1]” or “[2-5]” or “[3,7,9]”).

Response: References cited in brackets. Cited throughout the manuscript

Comments: (ii) There is inconsistency in the references. Firstly, references with more than six authors should list the first six author names, followed by “et al.” Moreover, all references should follow exactly the same style.

Response: Referencing of authors changed as per instructions. References 8, 15, 16

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-18572R1Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please state the reasons the raw data of your work cannot be made public as an Appendix to this publication

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

You have adequately addressed generally all the comments raised in the previous round or review process. In the attached file you can see some additional comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Katerina Kavvadia

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21- 18572_R1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Dec 2021

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS#1: Please state the reasons the raw data of your work cannot be made public as an Appendix to this publication

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Raw data has been uploaded as a separate file with main manuscript.

Changes done on page/line number: A separate document named as Appendix attached.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS# 2: In the abstract section, the “background” was correctly deleted and it is now well structured. However, I would recommend to replace “Aim and Objectives” with just “Objective”.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Aim and Objectives” changed to “Objective”.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 17

REVIEWER COMMENTS # 2: The significance of the study and the reason of its conduction are now well highlighted in the Introduction section. However, in the Aim and Objective section, it would be preferable if there was no title and just the beginning of the sentence was: “The aim of the present study was to assess the pattern of submission guidelines regarding the ethical issues given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals.“

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 73-74

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: The subsections of the MATERIALS AND METHODS section should follow the same format. All for example bold and italics.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done. Sub headings changed in bold and italic.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 76, 91, 104, 129, 135, 141.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: Please rephrase lines 85-86: “However, the journals which were discontinued or with irregular publishing were excluded.”

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Changes done. Language changed.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 86.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In line 93, the keyword “Pediatric Dentistry” is mentioned twice.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Two different key words used are- Paediatric Dentistry and Pediatric Dentistry due to differences in British and American English; spellings corrected.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 93.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In the figure and table legends please delete the phrase: “This is the figure 1…” or “This is the Table 1…”. For Figure 1, you can just write: “Figure 1: Literature Search Methodology and Results.”

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Legends for table and figures corrected.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 172, 176, 181.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In conclusions, in the second bullet please split the sentence in order to be clearer.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: The second bullet has been split into different sentences as second and third bullet for clarity.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 271-276.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: In conclusions, the following sentence: “There is a need that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors.” could be placed in a separate bullet.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: Bullet separated for “There is a need that journals must carefully cover all aspects on ethical conduct and research reporting in submission guidelines for authors.” in conclusion.

Changes done on page/line number: Line 280- 281.

REVIEWER´S COMMENTS: Please check again the references so that all follow the same format. Inconsistencies exist again, so make sure that the dates, the authors etc. are written in the same way.

AUTHOR´S REPLY: References checked and modified.

Changes done on page/line number: Format of References number 1,2,6,7,8,9, 13,14, 16 modified.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-18572R2Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

After close evaluation of the manuscript and the uploaded raw data, I have noticed that the Impact Factor presented for the journals is not correct (both in raw data information and Table 1). It appears that you have mixed- up Impact scores of some journals with impact factors.

For example, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry has no Impact Factor currently (Clarivate Analytics), but reports an Impact score of 2.16. this is different. pls correct throughout and re- examine closely for all journals. As in others, for example Intern J Paediatr Dent, the correct IF is given. Also, for others there is inconsistency on what it is reported in the Table and Appendix file with raw data.

Please use the Clarivate Analytics of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020, consistently.

Thank you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Dec 2021

Additional Editor Comments:

After close evaluation of the manuscript and the uploaded raw data, I have noticed that the Impact Factor presented for the journals is not correct (both in raw data information and Table 1). It appears that you have mixed- up Impact scores of some journals with impact factors. For example, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry has no Impact Factor currently (Clarivate Analytics), but reports an Impact score of 2.16. this is different. pls correct throughout and re- examine closely for all journals. As in others, for example Intern J Paediatr Dent, the correct IF is given. Also, for others there is inconsistency on what it is reported in the Table and Appendix file with raw data. Please use the Clarivate Analytics of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports 2020, consistently.

Reply to Comments:

The impact factor values have been modified in the manuscript and appendix as suggested and are highlighted in yellow.

Line/Page number:

Line 154-156 (Table 1 in manuscript)

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Dec 2021

Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.

PONE-D-21-18572R3

Dear Dr. Walia,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Despina Koletsi, Dipl.D.S, MSc, Dr. med. dent, MSc, DLSHTM, PGCHEd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

7 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-18572R3

Authors submission guidelines, a survey of Pediatric Dentistry journals regarding ethical issues.

Dear Dr. Walia:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Despina Koletsi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE