-
International Journal of Pediatric... Feb 2020This study seeks to describe publishing trends for VPI over a 33-year span with regard to treating specialty, methods of assessment, related diagnoses, and methods of...
OBJECTIVE
This study seeks to describe publishing trends for VPI over a 33-year span with regard to treating specialty, methods of assessment, related diagnoses, and methods of treatment for each specialty.
METHODS
A PubMed search was performed on "velopharyngeal insufficiency" using medical subject headings terms from 1985 to 2017. Publisher specialty, method(s) of VPI assessment, associated diagnosis/diagnoses, and method(s) of VPI treatment per specialty and combined across specialties were analyzed. Respective publications were totaled in 11-year intervals and two-way analysis of variance was used to compare change over time within specialties and across specialties.
RESULTS
763 publications were included for analysis. The total number of publications on VPI increased from a total of 6 in 1985 to a peak of 67 in 2015. The specialties that showed the largest increase in relative frequency of publication were Otolaryngology (p < 0.001), Plastic Surgery (p < 0.001), and Multidisciplinary (p < 0.001). Publications on endoscopic (p < 0.001) evaluation of VPI have significantly increased over time relative to magnetic resonance imaging and lateral cephalometry. Across all specialties, publications that feature pharyngoplasty (p < 0.001), palatoplasty (p < 0.001), and pharyngeal flap (p < 0.001) as methods of VPI treatment have significantly increased over time.
CONCLUSION
There is a trend towards endoscopy for diagnostics and a multidisciplinary approach when managing patients with VPI. The specialty that showed the largest increase in the relative frequency of publication was Otolaryngology. Surgical methods of treatment continue to be described at increasing frequency relative to more conservative treatments.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Humans; Otolaryngology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Specialization; Surgery, Plastic; Velopharyngeal Insufficiency
PubMed: 31760335
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109761 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2017This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of...
This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript. Each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form. All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced. All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees. All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript. The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.
Topics: Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 29098794
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12261 -
Journal de Mycologie Medicale Apr 2020
Topics: History, 21st Century; Humans; Mycology; Publishing; Serial Publications; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 32279707
DOI: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2020.100955 -
Ophthalmic Epidemiology Aug 2022There are currently no available aids for authors when selecting ophthalmology journals to submit their manuscripts. We aim to provide comprehensive data on the duration...
PURPOSE
There are currently no available aids for authors when selecting ophthalmology journals to submit their manuscripts. We aim to provide comprehensive data on the duration from submission to various stages of the publication process and assess factors influencing time to publication in ophthalmology journals.
METHODS
A list of ophthalmology journals was obtained from the 2019 Web of Science Journal Citation Report. Journal characteristics, such as five-year impact factor, number of authors per article, journal type, and number of multi-institutional articles, were collected. The dates of submission, acceptance, electronic and print publication for all articles published in an ophthalmology journal in 2019 were determined.
RESULTS
In total, 56 journals and 8835 research articles were included. Of these articles, 3591 (40.6%) were open access and 4837 (54.7%) were multi-institutional. In 2019, most publications came from the United States of America (n = 1973), China (n = 1069) and Germany (n = 602). Significant associations were found between various predictors and a reduced mean number of days from submission to electronic publication: increased journal five-year impact factor (.026), more authors (.028), publishing in a hybrid journal (both open-access and subscription articles) versus an open-access journal (.021), and a reduced proportion of multi-institutional articles in a journal (.030).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide variation in the time to acceptance and publication in ophthalmology journals. Authors can expect a shorter time to publication when publishing in high-impact journals.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Germany; Humans; Ophthalmology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; United States
PubMed: 34027811
DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2021.1926516 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Aug 2022Publishing identifiable patient data in scientific journals may jeopardize patient privacy and confidentiality if best ethical practices are not followed. Current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Publishing identifiable patient data in scientific journals may jeopardize patient privacy and confidentiality if best ethical practices are not followed. Current journal practices show considerable diversity in the publication of identifiable patient photographs, and different stakeholders may have different opinions of and practices in publishing patient photographs.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to identify existing evidence and map knowledge gaps in medical research on the policies and practices of publishing identifiable photographs in scientific articles.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL with Full Text, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus. The Open Science Framework, PROSPERO, BASE, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Campbell Collaboration Library, and Science.gov were also searched.
RESULTS
After screening the initial 15,949 titles and abstracts, 98 (0.61%) publications were assessed for eligibility at the full-text level, and 30 (0.19%) publications were included in this review. The studies were published between 1994 and 2020; most had a cross-sectional design and were published in journals covering different medical disciplines. We identified 3 main topics. The first included ethical aspects of the use of facial photographs in publications. In different clinical settings, the consent process was not conducted properly, and health professionals did not recognize the importance of obtaining written patient consent for taking and using patient medical photographs. They often considered verbal consent sufficient or even used the photographs without consent. The second topic included studies that investigated the practices and use of medical photography in publishing. Both patients and doctors asked for confidential storage and maintenance of medical photographs. Patients preferred to be photographed by their physicians using an institutional camera and preferred nonidentifiable medical photographs not only for publication but also in general. Conventional methods of deidentification of facial photographs concealing the eye area were recognized as unsuccessful in protecting patient privacy. The third topic emerged from studies investigating medical photography in journal articles. These studies showed great diversity in publishing practices regarding consent for publication of medical photographs. Journal policies regarding the consent process and consent forms were insufficient, and existing ethical professional guidelines were not fully implemented in actual practices. Patients' photographs from open-access medical journals were found on public web-based platforms.
CONCLUSIONS
This scoping review showed a diversity of practices in publishing identifiable patient photographs and an unsatisfactory level of knowledge of this issue among different stakeholders despite existing standards. Emerging issues include the availability of patients' photographs from open-access journals or preprints in the digital environment. There is a need to improve standards and processes to obtain proper consent to fully protect the privacy of patients in published articles.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Informed Consent; Periodicals as Topic; Policy; Publishing; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 36044262
DOI: 10.2196/37594 -
Acta Physiologica (Oxford, England) Dec 2017
Good publication practice in physiology 2017: Current Revisions of the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Topics: Animals; Biomedical Research; Editorial Policies; Humans; Manuscripts as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 29054123
DOI: 10.1111/apha.12984 -
Surgery Aug 2018Few details are known about open-access surgery journals that solicit manuscripts via E-mail. The objectives of this cross-sectional study are to compare solicitant...
BACKGROUND
Few details are known about open-access surgery journals that solicit manuscripts via E-mail. The objectives of this cross-sectional study are to compare solicitant surgery journals with established journals and to characterize the academic credentials and reasons for publication of their authorship.
METHODS
We identified publishers who contacted the senior author and compared their surgery journals with 10 top-tier surgical journals and open-access medical journals. We assessed the senior authorship of articles published January 2017-March 2017 and utilized a blinded survey to determine motivations for publication.
RESULTS
Throughout a 6-week period, 110 E-mails were received from 29 publishers distributing 113 surgery journals. Compared with established journals, these journals offered lesser publication fees, but also had lesser PubMed indexing rates and impact factors (all P < .002). Professors, division chiefs, and department chairs were the senior authors of nearly half of US-published papers and spent ≈$83,000 to publish 117 articles in journals with a median impact factor of 0.12 and a 33% PubMed indexing rate. Survey responses revealed a dichotomy as 43% and 57% of authors published in these journals with and without knowledge of their solicitant nature, respectively. The most commonly reported reasons for submission included waived publication fees (50%), invitation (38%), and difficulty publishing elsewhere (12%).
CONCLUSION
Despite their sparse PubMed indexing and low impact factors, many senior academic faculty publish in solicitant surgery journals. This study highlights the importance for the academic surgical community to be cognizant of the quality of a journal when reviewing the literature for research and evidence-based practice.
Topics: Authorship; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Surgeons
PubMed: 29724409
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.027 -
Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy Jun 2017Publication bias is defined as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction...
Publication bias is defined as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or the strength of the study findings."Publication bias distorts the accumulated data in the literature, causes the over estimation of potential benefits of intervention and mantles the risks and adverse effects, and creates a barrier to assessing the clinical utility of drugs as well as evaluating the long-term safety of medical interventions. The World Medical Association, the International Committee of Medical Journals, and the Committee on Publication Ethics have conferred responsibilities and ethical obligations to editors concerning the avoidance of publication bias. Despite the explicit statements in these international documents, the editors' role in and ability to avoid publication bias is still being discussed. Unquestionably, all parties involved in clinical research have the ultimate responsibility to sustain the research integrity and validity of accumulated general knowledge. Cooperation and commitment is required at every step of a clinical trial. However, this holistic approach does not exclude effective measures to be taken at the editors' level. The editors of major medical journals concluded that one precaution that editors can take is to mandate registration of all clinical trials in a public repository as a precondition to submitting manuscripts to journals. Raising awareness regarding the value of publishing negative data for the scientific community and human health, and increasing the number of journals that are dedicated to publishing negative results or that set aside a section in their pages to do so, are positive steps editors can take to avoid publication bias.
Topics: Bioethics; Biomedical Research; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publication Bias; Publishing
PubMed: 28342053
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0 -
Journal of Neurosurgery Sep 2015
Topics: Bibliometrics; Humans; Internship and Residency; Neurosurgery; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 26561675
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of the American Podiatric... May 2019The quality of national society conferences is often assessed indirectly by analyzing the journal publication rates for the abstracts presented. Studies have reported...
BACKGROUND
The quality of national society conferences is often assessed indirectly by analyzing the journal publication rates for the abstracts presented. Studies have reported rates from 67.5% to 76.7% for oral abstracts and 23.2% to 55.8% for poster abstracts presented at national foot and ankle society conferences. However, no study has evaluated the abstract to journal publication rate for the American Podiatric Medical Association's (APMA's) annual conference.
METHODS
All presented abstracts from the 2010 to 2014 conferences were compiled. PubMed and Google Scholar searches were performed, and the number of abstracts presented, publication rate, mean time to publication, and most common journals of publication were determined. These results were then compared with those for the 2010 to 2014 American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons' conferences.
RESULTS
Of 380 abstracts presented, 142 (37.4%) achieved publication, most often in the . The oral abstract publication rate was 45.2% (14 of 31), with a mean time to publication of 24.2 months (range, 0-47 months). The poster publication rate was 36.7% (128 of 349), with a mean time to publication of 16.3 months (range, 0-56 months). Significant differences were identified between the two societies.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall abstract to journal publication rate for the 2010 to 2014 APMA conferences was 37.4%, and, expectedly, oral abstracts achieved publication more often than posters. Moving forward, a concerted effort between competing societies seems necessary to increase research interest, institutional support, and formal mentorship for future generations of foot and ankle specialists.
Topics: Abstracting and Indexing; Bibliometrics; Congresses as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Podiatry; Publishing; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 31268791
DOI: 10.7547/18-016