-
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 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Jul 2022This was a retrospective review.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a retrospective review.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the impact of open access (OA) publication on citation rates and attention scores of literature related to lumbar spine surgery.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
OA literature allows readers to view full-text manuscripts of research publications free of charge, however, OA publication is often associated with substantial fees for authors.
METHODS
The Altmetric database was searched for articles related to lumbar spine surgery. Title, journal, publication date, Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), number of public mentions, and OA status were collected for each included article. The influence of OA status on Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, and each individual component of the AAS was assessed. To control for journal influence, impact of OA on Dimensions Citations and AAS was separately assessed for each of the top 10 journals contributing the most mentioned articles. The top 25 most cited articles and top 25 articles by AAS were also characterized.
RESULTS
A total of 5245 articles were included, of which 2063 were published with OA and 3182 were not. OA status was a significant, independent predictor of AAS and Mendeley Readers (both P <0.001), but not Dimensions Citations ( P =0.422). OA status significantly predicted mentions in news stories ( P =0.003), Twitter posts ( P <0.001), Facebook posts ( P <0.001), and Wikipedia citations ( P =0.011). Of the top 10 contributing journals, OA status significantly predicted Dimensions Citations for European Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.005) and predicted AAS for Spine , European Spine Journal , The Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.017, all).
DISCUSSION
OA status appeared to significantly impact public attention scores, but not citation rates, although these effects did vary based on the journal in which articles were published. Authors may want to consider OA publication based on their target audience and the goal of their research.
Topics: Access to Information; Bibliometrics; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Lumbar Vertebrae; Open Access Publishing; Retrospective Studies; Social Media
PubMed: 35239532
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001303 -
Journal of Neurosurgery Aug 2022
Topics: Humans; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 35962967
DOI: 10.3171/2022.7.JNS221407 -
Archivos de La Sociedad Espanola de... Dec 2018
Topics: Periodicals as Topic; Plagiarism; Publishing; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 30337093
DOI: 10.1016/j.oftal.2018.08.009 -
PLoS Computational Biology Jul 2020
Topics: Periodicals as Topic; Publications; Publishing; Reading; Research
PubMed: 32730251
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Jan 2018
Topics: Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 29392915
DOI: 10.1111/ans.14255 -
PloS One 2017Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.
METHODS
We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.
RESULTS
180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.
CONCLUSION
Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Information Dissemination; Journal Impact Factor; Neurology; Publication Bias; Publications; Publishing; Research
PubMed: 28727834
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180986 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov 2019Conversational interfaces (CIs) in different modalities have been developed for health purposes, such as health behavioral intervention, patient self-management, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Conversational interfaces (CIs) in different modalities have been developed for health purposes, such as health behavioral intervention, patient self-management, and clinical decision support. Despite growing research evidence supporting CIs' potential, CI-related research is still in its infancy. There is a lack of systematic investigation that goes beyond publication review and presents the state of the art from perspectives of funding agencies, academia, and industry by incorporating CI-related public funding and patent activities.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to use data systematically extracted from multiple sources (ie, grant, publication, and patent databases) to investigate the development, research, and fund application of health-related CIs and associated stakeholders (ie, countries, organizations, and collaborators).
METHODS
A multifaceted search query was executed to retrieve records from 9 databases. Bibliometric analysis, social network analysis, and term co-occurrence analysis were conducted on the screened records.
RESULTS
This review included 42 funded projects, 428 research publications, and 162 patents. The total dollar amount of grants awarded was US $30,297,932, of which US $13,513,473 was awarded by US funding agencies and US $16,784,459 was funded by the Europe Commission. The top 3 funding agencies in the United States were the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Boston Medical Center was awarded the largest combined grant size (US $2,246,437) for 4 projects. The authors of the publications were from 58 countries and 566 organizations; the top 3 most productive organizations were Northeastern University (United States), Universiti Teknologi MARA (Malaysia), and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS; France). US researchers produced 114 publications. Although 82.0% (464/566) of the organizations engaged in interorganizational collaboration, 2 organizational research-collaboration clusters were observed with Northeastern University and CNRS as the central nodes. About 112 organizations from the United States and China filed 87.7% patents. IBM filed most patents (N=17). Only 5 patents were co-owned by different organizations, and there was no across-country collaboration on patenting activity. The terms patient, child, elderly, and robot were frequently discussed in the 3 record types. The terms related to mental and chronic issues were discussed mainly in grants and publications. The terms regarding multimodal interactions were widely mentioned as users' communication modes with CIs in the identified records.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provided an overview of the countries, organizations, and topic terms in funded projects, as well as the authorship, collaboration, content, and related information of research publications and patents. There is a lack of broad cross-sector partnerships among grant agencies, academia, and industry, particularly in the United States. Our results suggest a need to improve collaboration among public and private sectors and health care organizations in research and patent activities.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Humans; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 31738171
DOI: 10.2196/14672 -
PLoS Biology Feb 2022Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread...
Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Information Dissemination; Pandemics; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Publications; Publishing; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35104285
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001285 -
The National Medical Journal of India 2023Background . We assessed the balance between the number of publications required by medical teachers and the publication space available in the Indian medical journals....
Background . We assessed the balance between the number of publications required by medical teachers and the publication space available in the Indian medical journals. Methods . The Medical Council of India (MCI) website, its guidelines and documents were searched and we extracted data on the number of medical colleges, undergraduate and postgraduate seats and faculty requirement. The required number of assistant professors and associate professors was calculated. The publication requirements were estimated according to MCI's February 2020 guidelines. A publication which satisfied the above guidelines for promotion was counted as 'eligible publication'. Indian medical journals indexed in any of the MCI-permitted databases were identified, and the number of eligible articles in them in 2019 was counted. Results . India has a total of 79 798 MBBS seats, 33 025 postgraduate seats and 4231 superspecialty seats in MCI-certified medical institutions and to teach them 35 285 assistant professors and 23 116 associate professors are required. Assuming that each publication could serve a maximum of 3 teachers, we will need approximately 50 696 eligible publications in the next 7 years. A search of applicable databases, identified 162 unique Indian medical journals of which 79 were indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central. Among the remaining 63 were indexed in DOAJ, 14 in EMBASE, 3 in Scopus and 3 were indexed only in WOSSCIE. These journals cumulatively published a total of 8508 eligible publications in 2019. Conclusion . The publication space in Indian medical journals is limited, thus there is a need to have a national medical repository such as MedRxiv to prevent publication in predatory journals.
Topics: India; Faculty, Medical; Humans; Schools, Medical; Publishing; Periodicals as Topic; Publications
PubMed: 38692600
DOI: 10.25259/NMJI_567_21