-
Blood Jan 2020
Topics: Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 31895952
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019004224 -
ELife Jul 2020Some acronyms are useful and are widely understood, but many of the acronyms used in scientific papers hinder understanding and contribute to the increasing...
Some acronyms are useful and are widely understood, but many of the acronyms used in scientific papers hinder understanding and contribute to the increasing fragmentation of science. Here we report the results of an analysis of more than 24 million article titles and 18 million article abstracts published between 1950 and 2019. There was at least one acronym in 19% of the titles and 73% of the abstracts. Acronym use has also increased over time, but the re-use of acronyms has declined. We found that from more than one million unique acronyms in our data, just over 2,000 (0.2%) were used regularly, and most acronyms (79%) appeared fewer than 10 times. Acronyms are not the biggest current problem in science communication, but reducing their use is a simple change that would help readers and potentially increase the value of science.
Topics: Abbreviations as Topic; Editorial Policies; Literature; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 32701448
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.60080 -
Acta Ortopedica Mexicana 2024Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content.... (Review)
Review
Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.
Topics: Orthopedics; Periodicals as Topic; Traumatology; Publishing; Editorial Policies; Humans
PubMed: 38657148
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Orthodontics and... Oct 2019This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).
METHODS
Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.
RESULTS
Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Checklist; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Orthodontics; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Quality Control; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 31582116
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.009 -
Military Medicine Jul 2023
Topics: Humans; Military Medicine; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 37433018
DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usad242 -
Medicina 2023The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves....
The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Periodicals as Topic; Peer Review; Medicine
PubMed: 36774603
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Neuroradiology Jun 2024It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to...
PURPOSE
It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to explore the integrity of clinical neuroradiological research using a survey method.
METHODS
Corresponding authors who published in one of four top clinical neuroradiology journals were invited to complete a survey about integrity in clinical neuroradiology research.
RESULTS
A total of 232 corresponding authors participated in our survey. Confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in clinical neuroradiology (0-10 point scale) was rated as a median score of 8 (range 3-10). In linear regression analysis, respondents from Asia had significantly higher confidence (beta coefficient of 0.569, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.049-1.088, P = 0.032). Of the respondents 8 (3.4%) reported to have committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, whereas 66 respondents (28.4%) reported to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. A total of 192 respondents (82.8%) thought that a study with positive results is more likely to be accepted by a journal than a similar study with negative results and 96 respondents (41.4%) had an honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years.
CONCLUSION
Experts in the field have overall high confidence in published clinical neuroradiology research; however, scientific integrity concerns are not negligible, publication bias is a problem and honorary authorship is common. The findings from this survey may help to increase awareness and vigilance among anyone involved in clinical neuroradiological research.
Topics: Scientific Misconduct; Humans; Biomedical Research; Authorship; Surveys and Questionnaires; Periodicals as Topic; Neuroradiography; Publication Bias; Publishing
PubMed: 38095663
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-023-01280-4 -
Clinical Neuroradiology Sep 2019
Topics: Bibliometrics; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Neuroimaging; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 31392361
DOI: 10.1007/s00062-019-00821-0 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science Aug 2021Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis accompanied by oral-genital ulcers, ocular, cerebral, and gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to...
BACKGROUND
Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis accompanied by oral-genital ulcers, ocular, cerebral, and gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate BD articles published between 2010-2019 bibliometrically and to provide up-to-date data. A secondary aim was to present a different perspective using altmetric assessments.
METHODS
This bibliometric and altmetric research was performed with data obtained from the Web of Science database. The key terms "Behcet's disease," "Behcet's syndrome," and "Behcet" were used for listing the articles. The number of articles, citation data, and active countries were determined. Trend and correlation analyses were performed. Altmetric attention scores (AASs) and Mendeley readers count (MRC) of the articles were acquired for the altmetric evaluations.
RESULTS
A total of 5,201 articles were listed. After the exclusion criteria, a total of 2,163 articles were obtained for further analysis. A significant and increasing trend was detected in the number of articles from 2010 to 2019 ( < 0.001). Turkey (28.24%), China (9.57%), South Korea (9.20%), Japan (6.38%), and Italy (5.64%) were the five most productive countries. France, the United States and, the United Kingdom were the top three countries in respect of the average number of citations per article. A weak significant correlation was detected between the number of citations and AAS ( < 0.001). The number of citations was significantly and strongly correlated with the MRC ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
An increasing trend was found in BD research productivity. Although the Silk Road countries were prominent in the number of articles, a similar ranking was not valid for the average number of citations per article.
Topics: Behcet Syndrome; Bibliometrics; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 34402225
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e207 -
Publication Rates Vary Across Orthopaedic Subspecialties: A Longitudinal Analysis of AAOS Abstracts.The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal Dec 2023Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic...
BACKGROUND
Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic advancement. However, the academic landscape and pressures that researchers face may differ greatly across different subspecialties. This study attempts to explore and quantify differences in research presented at national conferences and its implication on ultimate likelihood of publication in peer-reviewed journals.
METHODS
All abstracts from the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed and categorized based on subspecialty focus. Resulting publications were identified using a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Multivariate binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the predictive value of abstract characteristics on eventual publication.
RESULTS
A total of 1805 abstracts from the 2016 and 2017 AAOS conferences were reviewed. The overall publication rate of abstracts following the AAOS meetings was 71.6%, with an average time to publication from abstract submission deadline and impact factor of 19.8 months and 2.878, respectively. Statistical differences were observed across subspecialties with respect to publication rate (p<0.001), time to publication (p<0.001), and impact factor (p<0.001). The subspecialty with the highest publication rate, largest impact factor, and shortest average time to publication was Sports Medicine with 83.2%, 3.98, and 17.6 months, respectively; despite lower average sample size (p<0.001) and frequency of multicenter design (p<0.001) compared with other subspecialties. The subspecialty with the lowest publication rate and impact factor was Hand and Wrist with 53.3% and 1.41, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates a lower likelihood for internationally authored abstracts (OR: 0.75, p=0.021) and higher likelihood for basic science abstracts (OR: 1.52, p-value=0.023) to reach publication.
CONCLUSION
Differences in publication rate across orthopaedic subspecialties were observed with articles in sports medicine more likely to be published, published quickly, and featured in a higher impact factor journals. Understanding these differences, and how they relate to the publication and promotion of novel research, is important for orthopaedic researchers. .
Topics: Humans; Logistic Models; Orthopedics; Societies, Medical; Sports Medicine; United States; Publishing; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 38213852
DOI: No ID Found