-
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma May 2018To determine journal publication rates of podium presentations from the OTA Annual Meetings between 2008 and 2012.
OBJECTIVE
To determine journal publication rates of podium presentations from the OTA Annual Meetings between 2008 and 2012.
METHODS
Podium presentations from the 2008 to 2012 OTA annual meeting were compiled from the Annual Meeting archives. During December 2016, and Google Scholar were performed using individual keywords in the abstract title and content. The results were reviewed for matches to the meeting abstracts with regard to the title, authors, and abstract content. Yearly publication rates were calculated, along with time to publication and common journals for publication.
RESULTS
The publication rate for the 357 podium abstracts presented at the OTA between 2008 and 2012 was 72.8%. Eighty-one percent of abstracts were from the US institutions. The mean time to publication from podium presentation was 23.4 months, and the most common journals of publication were Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (45.4%) and The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (15.3%).
CONCLUSIONS
The publication rate of the podium presentations at the OTA Annual Meeting from 2008 to 2012 has increased since previous years. Compared with other orthopaedic subspecialty and nonorthopaedic specialty meetings, the OTA publication rate is among the highest in the medical field. OTA annual meetings are an opportunity for early access to high-quality research in the area of orthopaedic trauma.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Congresses as Topic; Orthopedics; Publications; Publishing; Societies, Medical; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 29065041
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001045 -
Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) Jan 2015
Topics: Humans; Neurosciences; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 25630773
DOI: No ID Found -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy May 2018
Topics: Duplicate Publications as Topic; Editorial Policies; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Retrospective Studies; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 29555343
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.01.002 -
Environment International Oct 2019In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in scientific publications dealing with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and the escalating... (Review)
Review
In the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in scientific publications dealing with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and the escalating publication rate makes it close to impossible for individual researchers to get an overview of the field. Assuring the relevance and quality of the research conducted in any research field is a crucially important task. The rapidly increasing publication rates imply that review papers will play a progressively more central role to that end. The aim of the present paper is to critically assess whether reviews dealing with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) are effective vehicles for a healthy dialogue about methodological weaknesses, uncertainties, research gaps and the future direction of the field. We carried out a tiered content-analysis of CEC review papers. Relevant papers were identified through searches in Web of Science (Clarivate), leading to the identification of 6391 original research papers of which 193 are review papers. We find that the majority of CEC reviews are written as if they are comprehensive, even though this clearly is not the case. A minority (~20%) take a critical-analytical approach to the reviewing task and identify weaknesses and research gaps. The following widespread tendencies in CEC research papers are commonly noted as concerning: to equate removal of CECs to 'decreased concentrations in the effluent'; to focus on parent substances and not concern oneself with degradation products; to focus on most commonly studied substances rather than those of most concern; to not deal with the corollary of our inability to detect or assess the risk for all substances, and to give insufficient attention to uncertainties and the unknown. Several critical-analytical reviews are among the highest cited, which suggests that they have the potential to function as effective vehicles for a healthy dialogue on these topics. On the other hand, it would appear that the concerns expressed in these reviews have a limited impact, as the same concerns are repeated over time. This might be due to a tendency among review authors to express their concerns implicitly, instead of clearly spelling them out. Our study suggests that CEC reviews presently fail to provide adequate and reliable guidance regarding the relevance and quality of research in the field. We argue that the overwhelming number of publications in combination with a lack of quality criteria for review papers are reasons to this failure: it is well documented that choices made during the reviewing process have a major impact on the outcome of a review. These choices include: search engine; the criteria used to include or exclude papers; the criteria used to assess the quality of the data generated in the research papers included; the criteria used for the choice of substances/ organisms/ technologies reported on. The lack of transparent procedures makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the quality of the findings presented or to put those findings in context. In this light, it is noteworthy that criteria for a good review paper are rarely spelled out by peer-reviewed journals or included in instructions on scientific writing. The dramatic increase in publications is a challenge for the entire research community, particularly for research fields that are expected to provide policy-relevant data. We argue that only when peer-reviewed journals start specifying quality criteria for review papers, can such papers be relied upon to provide adequate and strategic guidance on the development of CEC research. We anticipate that our findings and conclusions are valid for many other research fields.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Environmental Pollutants; Humans; Publishing; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 31299604
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.104960 -
Research in Nursing & Health Aug 2008
Review
Topics: Authorship; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Editorial Policies; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Nursing Research; Periodicals as Topic; Plagiarism; Publishing
PubMed: 18324682
DOI: 10.1002/nur.20280 -
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.... Sep 2004
Topics: Ethics, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 15446513
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b7.15819 -
The Laryngoscope Jan 2007
Topics: Authorship; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Editorial Policies; Otolaryngology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 17202922
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000248736.12799.fa -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Dec 2006
Topics: Authorship; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Editorial Policies; Otolaryngology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 17141068
DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.10.001 -
Acta Otorrinolaringologica Espanola Feb 2008
Topics: Attitude; Humans; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 18341858
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2004
Topics: Practice Guidelines as Topic; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 15256228
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2004.05.011