Editorial policy of Magnesium Research: general considerations on the quality criteria for biomedical papers and some complementary guidelines for the contributors of Magnesium Research. Society for the Development on Magnesium Research.

The quality criteria of biomedical journals--and of 'Magnesium Research' as such--are being given a new insight. This has practical implications for the contributors and the editors. General considerations on the patterns of evaluation of scientific papers highlight five types of errors, that may be incurred in submitted manuscripts. 1. The information conveyed may remain ambiguous: for example, lack of discrimination between acute and chronic patterns, or confusion between the clinical and toxicological consequences of pharmacological and physiological studies: for example it is a real scientific fraud to identify the absent toxic effects of physiological magnesium supplementation with those of high pharmacological magnesium doses ... which in fact may induce toxicity. There should be no confusion between in vitro and in vivo data, with a good understanding of the systemic neuroendocrine metabolic and renal regulations and of the multiple local targets concerned. It is always important to discriminate between the two types of deficit: deficiency due to insufficient intake which merely requires oral physiological supplements and depletion related to a dysregulation which requires more or less specific correction of its causal dysregulation. 2. Insufficient information retrieval, frequently with consultation of one data-base only. Because of indexing omissions and word usage idiosyncrasies, no literature search can retrieve all papers. Monographs and books of proceedings are rarely mentioned in databases and therefore escape consultation. It is obvious, besides, that some of the quoted references have sometimes not been read, but only the title (and in the best cases also the abstract), occasionally with the remaining misprints. A good specific and general knowledge of the background of the study is necessary. 3. Basic methodological errors. Coexistence does not mean causality. Analogous patterns do not demonstrate an identical aetiopathogenesis. The complexity of biology must not be disregarded just because the present trend focuses on one aspect of knowledge at the expense of many others. 4. Thought processes must be unbiased. Citation of supportive papers to the prejudice of unsupportive papers constitutes a real ethical fraud. It seems also very important to submit for publication papers with negative results as well as ones with positive results. In studies on pharmacological indications for magnesium, choice of the magnesium salt used ought to be justified and the efficiency must be evaluated vs reference treatment. 5. Observance of the formal regulations is frequently neglected, in the presentation of manuscripts particularly. Some guidelines should therefore be added to the directions to contributors. Before establishing valuable protocols and in order to write up well structured introductions, discussions and conclusions, the authors should have a comprehensive view of their subjects, that is to say an overall knowledge of the previous general and specific publications related to the topic which must be read. Title, conclusions and abstract ought to be taken into account in the discussion. References should be duly consulted or mentioned as 'cited in'. There should be strict observance of the presentation of the manuscripts according to the directions to contributors. Studies resulting in negative results should not be disregarded. Reciprocally, the editorial policy requires that editors and referees ought to be strict as regards the quality criteria. Although editors and peer reviewers are in no position to detect basic fraud they can, however, highlight errors, whether due to simple oversight or to more subtle ethical or scientific pseudo-frauds. Both conclusive and inconcern papers may deserve publication: positive and negative results equally concern public health. To conclude, the editorial board must be ready to reject dubious manuscripts but must at the same time keep their minds open to consider in a positive l