-
Journal of Hand Surgery (Edinburgh,... Dec 2004This study evaluates the extent of duplicate publication in the Hand Surgery literature. A retrospective review of original articles published in the American and the...
This study evaluates the extent of duplicate publication in the Hand Surgery literature. A retrospective review of original articles published in the American and the British & European editions of Journal of Hand Surgery during the years 1999 and 2000 was performed using MEDLINE (PUBMED) search engine. Index articles suspected of dual publication were identified by using key words in the title and the names of the first, second and last authors. The full initial text was carefully studied and suspected duplicate articles were classified as dual, potentially dual or fragmented. Six hundred articles were evaluated, of which 25 (4%) index articles were identified with 33 "suspects". Eleven "index" and 15 "suspected" articles were cleared on closer scrutiny. Thus 14 "index" articles (2%) were found to be associated with 18 duplicated articles. Of these, four were classified as dual, five as potentially dual and nine as fragmented. We conclude that although duplicate publication of articles in the Journals of Hand Surgery (American and British/European Volumes) does occur, the incidence in the sample studied is lower than some other surgical journals.
Topics: Duplicate Publications as Topic; Hand; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 15542228
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.04.005 -
Systematic Reviews Sep 2015Systematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been...
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1994, and co-publication (publication of a Cochrane review in another journal) has been allowed since that time, as long as the co-publishing journal has agreed to the arrangement. Although standards for co-publication were established in 2008, the frequency of co-publication and adherence to the standards have remained largely unexamined. Our objective was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to the co-publication policy, the relative numbers of citations of the two modes of publishing, and differences in times cited in CSRs with and without a co-publication.
METHODS
We identified all CEVG reviews published by May 30, 2014 in The Cochrane Library. Using keywords from the title, author names, and "Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group", we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify possible co-publications. We also emailed contact authors of all identified CEVG reviews to ask them whether they had published their CSR elsewhere. We compared each co-publication to the corresponding CEVG review for adherence to the Cochrane Policy Manual (dated June 10, 2014). We recorded the number of times each CEVG review and each co-publication had been cited by others according to Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, as of June 11, 2014.
RESULTS
We identified 117 CEVG reviews;19 had been co-published in 22 articles. Adherence to Cochrane policy on co-publication was moderate, with all authors complying with at least one of four requirements we addressed. Co-publications were cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews; CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication were cited approximately twice as often as CEVG reviews without a co-publication. The number of citations varied considerably depending on whether the CEVG review had a co-publication or not.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors such as the possibility that CEVG reviews with a co-publication covered more clinically important and timely topics than those without a co-publication. Assuming that citations are a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the 15-year CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews suggests that Cochrane authors should be encouraged to co-publish in traditional medical journals.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Eye Diseases; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Information Dissemination; Ophthalmology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26395078
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0104-5 -
Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2014
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Periodicals as Topic; Pharmacology; Publishing; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 25538346
DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.144950 -
Orvosi Hetilap Sep 2001Attention is drawn to publication and scientometric malpractices utilized by biomedical authors who do not adhere to the accepted ethical norms. The difference between... (Review)
Review
Attention is drawn to publication and scientometric malpractices utilized by biomedical authors who do not adhere to the accepted ethical norms. The difference between duplicate/redundant and bilingual publications is defined. In the course of discussion of the manipulations that may be observed in the field of scientometry, it is pointed out that abstract of congress lectures/posters can not be taken into consideration for scientometric purposes even if such abstracts are published in journals with impact factors. A further behavioral form is likewise regarded as unacceptable from the aspect of publication ethics: when a physician who has participated in a multicentre, randomized clinical trial receives recognition (in an appendix or in an acknowledgement of an article) as having contributed data, but assesses this appreciation as co-authorship and thereby attempts to augment the value of his or her publication activity. The effects of globalization on biomedical publication activity are considered, and evidence is provided that the rapidly spreading electronic publication for a give rise to new types of ethical dilemmas. It is recommended that, in the current age of Anglo-American globalization, greater emphasis should be placed on the development of medical publication in the mother tongue (Hungarian).
Topics: Bibliometrics; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Ethics, Professional; Humans; Hungary; Publishing; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 11582734
DOI: No ID Found -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Oct 2014This article provides a broad overview of widely available measures of academic productivity and impact using publication data and highlights uses of these metrics for...
This article provides a broad overview of widely available measures of academic productivity and impact using publication data and highlights uses of these metrics for various purposes. Metrics based on publication data include measures such as number of publications, number of citations, the journal impact factor score, and the h-index, as well as emerging metrics based on document-level metrics. Publication metrics can be used for a variety of purposes for tenure and promotion, grant applications and renewal reports, benchmarking, recruiting efforts, and administrative purposes for departmental or university performance reports. The authors also highlight practical applications of measuring and reporting academic productivity and impact to emphasize and promote individual investigators, grant applications, or department output.
Topics: Authorship; Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 25308141
DOI: 10.1111/acem.12482 -
Headache Jan 2019
Topics: Plagiarism; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 30575971
DOI: 10.1111/head.13458 -
Clinical Hemorheology and... 2010
Topics: Guidelines as Topic; Hemorheology; Microcirculation; Publications; Publishing; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 20134087
DOI: 10.3233/CH-2010-1256A -
World Neurosurgery Jul 2022With the recent paradigm shift in neurosurgical publications, open access (OA) publishing is burgeoning along with traditional publishing methods. We aimed to explore...
OBJECTIVE
With the recent paradigm shift in neurosurgical publications, open access (OA) publishing is burgeoning along with traditional publishing methods. We aimed to explore costs of publication across 53 journals.
METHODS
We identified 53 journals publishing neurosurgical work. Journal type, submission and open access charges, color print fees, impact indicators, publisher, and subscription prices were obtained from journal and publisher websites. Costs were unified in U.S. dollars. Mean prices per journal were used to equilibrate membership and subscription discounts. Correlations were performed using Spearman ρ (P < 0.05).
RESULTS
Of 53 journals, 12 were OA only, 40 were hybrid, and 1 was traditional. Submission costs were provided by 22 and 43 journals, respectively, by the end of phase 1 and 2 (prices always for phase 2: 26 free of charge, 4 <$500, and 1 <$1000). Median OA charge was $3286 (49 journals; range, $0-$7827). Of 53 journals, 36 did not list print fees for color figures (29 in phase 2). Median fee estimate per figure was $422 (range, $25-$1060). Median personal subscription for 1 year was $344 (range, $60-$1158; 48 journals). Median institutional subscription for 1 year was $2082 (range, $38-$5510; 34 journals). There was a mild positive correlation between Journal Impact Factor and OA fees (ρ = 0.287, P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS
The lack of easily accessible information about neurosurgical publications, such as submission costs or OA charges, creates an unnecessary hurdle and should be remedied. Publishing in neurosurgery should be a positive learning experience, and cost should not be a limiting factor.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Neurosurgery; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 35421587
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.021 -
Nature Jun 2018
Topics: Bibliometrics; Periodicals as Topic; Prions; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 29950625
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-05387-4 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2017The aim of this study was to analyse publication trends from the anaesthetic literature of the G-20 countries. We performed a literature search in Medline to identify...
The aim of this study was to analyse publication trends from the anaesthetic literature of the G-20 countries. We performed a literature search in Medline to identify articles related to anaesthetic departments published between 2001 and 2015, by specific G-20 countries according to the affiliation field of the authors, and to three time periods 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2015. The number of articles, number of original articles (vs. reviews, editorials or correspondence), articles per million inhabitants, and citations per article were analysed. In total, 96,920 articles were published between 2001 and 2015 in 74 anaesthetic and in 4117 non-anaesthetic journals, with an increase of +104% absolute (i.e. from 23,028 in 2001-05 to 46,887 articles ìn 2010-15) and +85% as articles per million inhabitants. Similarly, the number of original articles increased by 21%, but the anaesthetic specialty's share of original articles (as a proportion of total articles in biomedicine) decreased from 31% in 2001-2005 to 19% in 2011-2015 (-38%). The USA published most articles (2011-15 16,016; 31% of total), second came the EU as a whole and third Japan (from 2001 to 2005) or Germany (2006-2010) until 2011-2015 when China took over the third rank. In 2011-2015, Canada published most articles per million inhabitants (68.7 articles/million inhabitants). China and India exhibited the most publication growth 11- and 9-fold, respectively, and are now among the top five countries for the number of published articles.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 28891052
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14016