-
Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden :... Jan 2022The characteristics of self-corrected publications have not been fully evaluated.
BACKGROUND
The characteristics of self-corrected publications have not been fully evaluated.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the annual number and characteristics of self-corrected publications in the imaging literature within the last 20 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) using the following keyword: ("Published Erratum" [Publication Type] OR "Corrected and Republished Article" [Publication Type]) in the imaging literature to identify all self-corrected publications in which initial versions of articles were published during 1999-2018. Extracted data included: date of publication of the original version; date of correction notification; the time interval between initial publication and correction; journal name; journal impact factor (IF); type of articles; number of authors; country of origin; and location of errors. Journals were divided into four quartiles (Q1-Q4) based on their IF.
RESULTS
A total of 1071 self-corrected publications were identified, representing 0.30% of all papers published in the imaging literature. Trend analysis showed exponential growth of the number and rate of self-corrected publications during 1999-2018. The median (range) time interval from initial publication to correction was 120 days (0-7755 days). The rate of self-corrected publications in Q4 journals (0.17%) was significantly lower than those in Q1 (0.35%, <0.0001), Q2 (0.26%, =0.0007), and Q3 (0.30%, <0.0001) journals. Additionally, 80.8% of self-corrected publications were original articles, 29.2% were from the USA, and 30.7% were corrected for author information (name, affiliation, and email address).
CONCLUSION
Self-corrected publications in the imaging literature have increased exponentially during 1999-2018 and author information was the most common location of error correction.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 33356360
DOI: 10.1177/0284185120983269 -
Journal of the Medical Library... Apr 2020Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to...
BACKGROUND
Advances in the health sciences rely on sharing research and data through publication. As information professionals are often asked to contribute their knowledge to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting journals for publication, the authors recognized an opportunity to build a decision support tool, SPI-Hub: Scholarly Publishing Information Hub™, to capture the team's collective publishing industry knowledge, while carefully retaining the quality of service.
CASE PRESENTATION
SPI-Hub's decision support functionality relies on a data framework that describes journal publication policies and practices through a newly designed metadata structure, the Knowledge Management Journal Record™. Metadata fields are populated through a semi-automated process that uses custom programming to access content from multiple sources. Each record includes 25 metadata fields representing best publishing practices. Currently, the database includes more than 24,000 health sciences journal records. To correctly capture the resources needed for both completion and future maintenance of the project, the team conducted an internal study to assess time requirements for completing records through different stages of automation.
CONCLUSIONS
The journal decision support tool, SPI-Hub, provides an opportunity to assess publication practices by compiling data from a variety of sources in a single location. Automated and semi-automated approaches have effectively reduced the time needed for data collection. Through a comprehensive knowledge management framework and the incorporation of multiple quality points specific to each journal, SPI-Hub provides prospective users with both recommendations for publication and holistic assessment of the trustworthiness of journals in which to publish research and acquire trusted knowledge.
Topics: Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 32256240
DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2020.815 -
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 -
Implementation Science : IS Aug 2019In the 13 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions, reflecting the growing global interest...
In the 13 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions, reflecting the growing global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We now receive over 800 submissions annually, and there is a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. To better serve the needs of the research community, we announce our plans to introduce a new journal, Implementation Science Communications, which we believe will support publication of types of research reports currently not often published in Implementation Science. In this editorial, we state both journals' scope and current boundaries and set out our expectations for the scientific reporting, quality, and transparency of the manuscripts we receive.
Topics: Editorial Policies; Humans; Implementation Science; Organizational Objectives; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 31387596
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0922-2 -
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 -
The Lancet. Neurology Feb 2020
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Publications; Publishing; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 31978355
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30481-8 -
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 -
Clinical Rheumatology Feb 2020To assess the content, authorship and study design of rheumatological publications written by Malaysian authors or about rheumatological conditions in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the content, authorship and study design of rheumatological publications written by Malaysian authors or about rheumatological conditions in Malaysia.
METHODS
The Malaysian Medical Repository (MyMedR), a web-based database of Malaysian health and medical publications, and Scopus were searched to retrieve rheumatological publications from Malaysia, for the period 1950 until 30 June 2019. The type and number of publications in each rheumatological subject area and the overall trend of publication numbers and citations were analysed.
RESULTS
547 publications were found for the time period studied. There was a 27-fold increase in the number of publications from the period up to 1980 compared to 2010-2019. The median number of citations per paper was 5, but unlike the number of publications, there was only a slight increase in the number of citations with time. 84.5% of the papers were cited at least once. The top 3 conditions generating the most publications were systemic lupus erythematosus, 36.7%, followed by rheumatoid arthritis, 17.0%, and osteoporosis, 13.9%.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of rheumatological publications in Malaysia have increased over time, especially in the last decade. However, the average number of citations per publications remains low and the majority of publications are in journals with low impact factors. Thus, the quality of rheumatological publications from Malaysia can be further improved.Key Points• There have been only a limited number of bibliometric analysis of rheumatology publications from Asia.• In Malaysia, the number of rheumatology publications has increased over time.• However, there is still room for improvement in terms of the quality of the publications.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Databases, Factual; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Malaysia; Publishing; Rheumatology
PubMed: 31784864
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-019-04839-0 -
Indian Journal of Public Health 2020The impact of scholarly journals has increased with invent of Internet due to improved access, faster dissemination, and ease of searching a variety of publications....
The impact of scholarly journals has increased with invent of Internet due to improved access, faster dissemination, and ease of searching a variety of publications. With the increasing trend of research, open access (OA) publishing has increased intensely over the last few years. The core intent of OA is faster dissemination of research by making it available to readers free of cost. However, some publishers exploited this novel idea for their own benefit. Beall termed them as predatory publishers/journals. In this article, authors have made efforts to understand the predatory publishers/journal, reasons behind their upsurge, their modus operandi, their common targets, and the points which will help readers to identify them. The aim of this article is to expose facts behind the predatory journal and to create awareness among not only budding researchers but also faculty members, authors, and editors about the threat predatory journals carry toward scientific world and to their own curricula.
Topics: Editorial Policies; Humans; India; Open Access Publishing; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 32189691
DOI: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_249_19 -
PloS One 2021Women in oral health science face similar societal issues and challenges as those in other STEMM careers, and gender disparities continue to exist as evidenced by fewer... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVES
Women in oral health science face similar societal issues and challenges as those in other STEMM careers, and gender disparities continue to exist as evidenced by fewer women represented as first and last authors in scientific publications. Pre-prints may serve as a conduit to immediately disseminating one's work, bypassing the arduous peer review process and its associated inherent biases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to 1] compare the gender of first and last authors in pre-print versus peer reviewed publications, 2] examine the composition of first and last author pairs as stratified by publication type, and 3] examine the correlation between woman authorship and institutional geographic location and publication metrics stratified by publication type.
METHODS
The keyword "oral health" was used to search for publications in BioRxiv and Pubmed in the years 2018 and 2019. Gender of first and last authors were determined, and its frequency was considered as the primary outcome. Additionally, the geographic location of the author's associated institution and publication metrics measured by Altmetrics score were extracted. Data was descriptively summarized by frequencies and percentages. Chi-square analysis was conducted for categorical variables which included the relationship between gender and publication type as well as gender and region of author's associated institution. Binomial regression analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between gender and Altmetrics.
RESULTS
Woman first authors comprised 40.3% of pre-prints and 64.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. Woman last authors comprised 31.3% of pre-prints and 61.5% of peer reviewed publications [p<0.05]. When analyzing the relationships between first and last author, the Man-Man pairing represented 47.7% of the pre-print publications and the Woman-Woman pairing comprised a majority of the of the peer review publications at 47.5%. All results were statistically significant with a p-value <0.05. No significant correlation was found between region of institution or Altmetrics and gender of first or last authors [p>0.05].
CONCLUSION
For the first time in oral health science, it was found that women show higher representation as first and last author positions in peer reviewed publications versus pre-prints.
Topics: Authorship; Bibliometrics; Dental Research; Dental Staff; Female; Humans; Oral Health; Peer Review, Research; Preprints as Topic; Sexism
PubMed: 34871320
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260791