ChoBK. New era of Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2003; 11: 191–192.
5.
EzealaCNwekeIEzealaM. Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals. Ann Med Health Sci Res2013; 3: 376–379.doi:10.4103/2141-9248.117957
6.
GargADasSJainH. “Why We Say No! A Look through the editor’s Eye”. J Clin Diagn Res2015; 9: JB01–JJB5. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/17160.6699
7.
Consensus Conference Panel. Mandatory registration of clinical trials. J Am Coll Surg2007; 204: 654–655. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.028. PMID: 17382225.
8.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at:http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/[accessed: 28 Feb 2021].
9.
SampathkumarABeyersdorfFDennissAR,et al.Joint statement on redundant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardio-thoracic journals. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2015; 48: 343.
10.
BurnsPBChungKC. Developing good clinical questions and finding the best evidence to answer those questions. Plast Reconstr Surg2010; 126: 613–618.doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24a7
11.
HeadMLHolmanLLanfearR,et al.The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13: e1002106. Published 2015 Mar 13. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106.
12.
SihoeADL. Reasons not to perform uniportal VATS lobectomy. J Thorac Dis2016; 8: S333–S343.
13.
SihoeADL. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery as the gold standard for lung cancer surgery. Respirology2020; 25: 49–60.
14.
CuschieriSVassalloJ. Write a scientific paper (WASP): editor’s perspective of submissions and dealing with editors. Early Hum Dev2019; 129: 93–95.
15.
TrillaAAymerichMLacyAM,et al.Phenotypic differences between male physicians, surgeons, and film stars: comparative study. Br Med J2006; 333: 1291–1293.
16.
ChangJYSenanSPaulMA, et al.Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol2015; 16: 630–637.
17.
CaoCD’AmicoTDemmyT, et al.Surgery versus SABR for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol2015; 16: e370–e371.
18.
CasadevallAFangFC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio2014; 5: e00064–14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14
19.
BorgersonK. Valuing evidence: bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med2009; 52: 218–233.
20.
MuradMHAsiNAlsawasM,et al.New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med2016; 21: 125–127.
21.
LewisSCWarlowCP. How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2004; 75: 181–187.
22.
ThorntonALeeP. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol2000; 53: 207–216.
23.
HedinRJUmberhamBADetweilerBN, et al.Publication bias and nonreporting found in majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in anesthesiology journals. Anesth Analg2016; 123: 1018–1025.
24.
YaoLSunRChenYL,et al.The quality of evidence in Chinese meta-analyses needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol2016; 74: 73–79.
25.
MestresCAKumarAS. The art and science of scientific writing. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2019; 27: 335–337.
26.
MeoSA. Anatomy and physiology of a scientific paper. Saudi J Biol Sci2018; 25: 1278–1283.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Peer review in scientific publications, Eighth Report of Session 2010–12, Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, HC 856. Published by the Authority of the House of Commons. London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2011.
29.
LaursenL. Spanish science spending lockdown. Nature Published online 5 July 2010, Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2010.336.
30.
DunningJ. How to complete a review for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Journal Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2012; 41: 242–247.
31.
KleinertS. Singapore Embraces international research integrity. Lancet2010; 376: 400.
32.
KleinertS. Singapore Statement: a global agreement on responsible research conduct. Lancet2010; 376: 1125–1127.
33.
The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. European Science Foundation, 2011.
34.
VogelG. Cell biology: picking up the pieces after Hwang. Science2006; 312: 516–517.
35.
Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct 42 CFR 93, 2005.
36.
TitusSLWellsJARhoadesLJ. Repairing research integrity. Nature2008; 453: 980–982.
37.
ChoBKTurinaMIKarpRB,et al.Joint statement on redundant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardio-thoracic journals. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg1999; 61: 1.
38.
DeAngelisCDThorntonJP. Preserving confidentiality in the peer review process. JAMA2008; 299: 1956.
39.
SampathkumarA. Change is inevitable. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2020; 28: 5–6.
