-
Canadian Association of Radiologists... May 2024
Topics: Open Access Publishing; Humans; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 38124023
DOI: 10.1177/08465371231219666 -
Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Jul 2021
Topics: Dermatology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 33914956
DOI: 10.1111/ced.14709 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Feb 2020
Topics: History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Models, Theoretical; Open Access Publishing; Otolaryngology; Publishing
PubMed: 30933183
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-2192 -
Academic Medicine : Journal of the... Aug 2020Academic medical faculty members are assessed on their research productivity for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions. The current work systematically reviews,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Academic medical faculty members are assessed on their research productivity for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions. The current work systematically reviews, synthesizes, and analyzes the available literature on publication productivity by academic rank across medical specialties.
METHOD
The authors searched PubMed for medical literature, including observational studies, published in English from 2005 to 2018, using the term "h-index," on July 1, 2018. Studies had to report on h-indices for faculty in academic medicine and, if available, other publication metrics, including number of citations, number of publications, and m-indices, stratified by academic rank. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to perform meta-analyses for the primary (h-index) and secondary (m-index) outcome measures.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 21 studies. The meta-analysis included 19 studies and data on 14,567 academic physicians. Both h- and m-indices increased with academic rank. The weighted random effects summary effect sizes for mean h-indices were 5.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.21-6.23, n = 6,609) for assistant professors, 11.22 (95% CI: 9.65-12.78, n = 3,508) for associate professors, 20.77 (95% CI: 17.94-23.60, n = 3,626) for full professors, and 22.08 (95% CI: 17.73-26.44, n = 816) for department chairs. Mean m-indices were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.65, n = 1,653) for assistant professors, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85, n = 883) for associate professors, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.75-1.22, n = 854) for full professors, and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.81-1.51, n = 195) for department chairs.
CONCLUSIONS
Both h- and m-indices increase with successive academic rank. There are unique distributions of these metrics among medical specialties. The h- and m-indices should be used in conjunction with other measures of academic success to evaluate faculty members for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Canada; Career Mobility; Efficiency; Faculty, Medical; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; United States
PubMed: 32028299
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003185 -
Medecine Sciences : M/S Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 36692256
DOI: 10.1051/medsci/2022202 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Nov 2023Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research...
Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper. This results in quantity rather than quality; is ethically inappropriate; creates extra work for readers, future authors, reviewers, and editors; and can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Increased awareness and actionable intervention can help to reverse this growing trend.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Plagiarism
PubMed: 37866858
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.003 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Aug 2020The objective of the study is to examine the time from publication of the protocol for a Cochrane review to publication of the Cochrane review for the entire Cochrane... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study is to examine the time from publication of the protocol for a Cochrane review to publication of the Cochrane review for the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS
Cochrane reviews from the CDSR published between 1995 and 2019 were assessed. Characteristics of the reviews were extracted, and time from publication of protocol to publication of review was calculated. These times were grouped for relevant characteristics and visualized through charts and tables to illustrate trends.
RESULTS
Of the total 8,201 reviews in the CDSR, 6,764 were included. The median publication time was 2 years (range 0 days to 21.7 years). Reviews that were published more than 5 years after the protocol made up 11% of all included reviews, whereas 19% of reviews were published within a year. The median publication time for the individual Cochrane Review Groups ranged from 15 to 39 months.
CONCLUSION
Half of Cochrane reviews were published later than Cochrane's aim of 2 years. Furthermore, the Cochrane Review Groups' median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic; Time
PubMed: 32413390
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.011 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Sep 2019
Topics: Biomedical Research; Journal Impact Factor; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 31475346
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17500 -
Journal of Clinical Apheresis Aug 2020Writing a manuscript for peer review is an art for which little formal preparation is provided during the education of physicians, scientists, and allied health... (Review)
Review
Writing a manuscript for peer review is an art for which little formal preparation is provided during the education of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals. At the same time, publishing their work may be central to their career ambitions. This article provides an explanation of the purpose and expected content of the components of a peer review manuscript and advice regarding how to go about writing one. It aims to somewhat demystify the process of scientific writing and render it accessible to more members of the American Society for Apheresis.
Topics: Blood Component Removal; Humans; Peer Review; Publications; Publishing; Research; Research Personnel; Societies, Medical; United States; Writing
PubMed: 32533633
DOI: 10.1002/jca.21797 -
The Journal of Surgical Research Nov 2023Open access publishing has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the quality of open access journals and their ability to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Open access publishing has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the quality of open access journals and their ability to reach target audiences. This study reviews and characterizes open access surgical journals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The directory of open access journals was used to search for open access surgical journals. PubMed indexing status, impact factor, article processing charge (APC), initial year of open access publishing, average weeks from manuscript submission to publication, publisher, and peer-review processes were evaluated.
RESULTS
Ninety-two open access surgical journals were identified. Most (n = 49, 53.3%) were indexed in PubMed. Journals established >10 y were more likely to be indexed in PubMed compared to journals established <5 y (28 of 41 [68.3%] versus 4 of 20 [20%], P < 0.001). 44 journals (47.8%) used a double-blind review method. 49 (53.2%) journals received an impact factor for 2021, ranging from <0.1 to 10.2 (median 1.4). The median APC was $362 United States dollar [interquartile range $0 - 1802 United States dollar]. 35 journals (38%) did not charge a processing fee. There was a significant positive correlation between the APC and impact factor (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). If accepted, the median time from manuscript submission to publication was 12 wk.
CONCLUSIONS
Open access surgical journals are largely indexed on PubMed, have transparent review processes, employ variable APCs (including no publication fees), and proceed efficiently from submission to publication. These results should increase readers' confidence in the quality of surgical literature published in open access journals.
Topics: Access to Information; Open Access Publishing; Periodicals as Topic; General Surgery
PubMed: 37291005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.04.008