Time to Publication in Medical Education Journals: An Analysis of Publication Timelines During COVID-19 (2019-2022).

Introduction: COVID-19 changed scholarly publishing. Yet, its impact on medical education publishing is unstudied. Because journal articles and their corresponding publication timelines can influence academic success, the field needs updated publication timelines to set evidence-based expectations for academic productivity. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: did publication timelines significantly change around the time of COVID-19 and, if so, how? Methods: We conducted a bibliometric study; our sample included articles published between January 2018, and December 2022, that appeared in the Medical Education Journals List-24 (MEJ-24). We clustered articles into three time-based groups (pre-COVID, COVID-overlap, and COVID-endemic), and two subject-based groups (about COVID-19 and not about COVID-19). We downloaded each article's metadata from the National Library of Medicine and analyzed data using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests to compare mean time differences across groups. Results: Overall, time to publish averaged 300.8 days (SD = 200.8). One-way between-groups ANOVA showed significant differences between the three time-based groups F (2, 7473) = 2150.7, p < .001. The post-hoc comparisons indicated that COVID-overlap articles took significantly longer (n = 1470, M= 539; SD = 210.6) as compared to pre-COVID (n = 1281; M = 302; SD = 172.5) and COVID-endemic articles (n = 4725; M = 226; SD = 136.5). Notably, COVID-endemic articles were published in significantly less time than pre-pandemic articles, p < .001. Discussion: Longer publication time was most pronounced for COVID-overlap articles. Publication timelines for COVID-endemic articles have shortened. Future research should explore how the shift in publication timelines has shaped medical education scholarship.

APAQ at Forty: Publication Trends.

The purpose of the present study was to analyze Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly (APAQ) publications over the journal's fourth decade (2014-2023) and compare them with previous documentary analyses of the first 3 decades. Consistent with prior documentary analyses, publications were coded and analyzed based on the use of theory, research participants, topic, whether the study was an intervention, first-author country affiliation, and research method. The total number of published research papers increased substantially (n = 61) from the third to the fourth decade. Similar to prior documentary analyses, most of the research was quantitative (n = 140; 57.5%), followed by qualitative research (n = 96; 39.5%). There were far more qualitative-research publications in the fourth decade compared with the third decade (n = 34). This may reflect the continued acceptance and growth of qualitative research compared with 10-20 years ago. It may also reflect the value of rich in-depth exploratory research using small samples. Additional trends included more review papers and meta-analyses, possibly reflecting the increased knowledge base in particular areas requiring synthesis. The diversity of topics also increased, with papers on dignity, classification, coaching, and the Paralympics playing more prominent roles. The number of international publications also grew substantially. In brief, the current paper outlines both similarities and differences in APAQ's published research over the 4 decades of its existence.

"The Best Home for This Paper": A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts.

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal's prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors' decision making. Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal's impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

Scientific output after the 2017, 2019 and 2021 meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología.

INTRODUCTION: The sharing of research findings through communications at congresses and publications is essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The aim was to determine the percentage of communications presented the biennial meetings of the Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo, Spanish Society of Neonatology) eventually published as full-text articles in indexed peer-reviewed journals and their bibliometric characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts from the oral communications (OCs) in the 2017, 2019 and 2021 SENeo congresses. Then we searched for the authors in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. We collected data on the authors, type of OC and bibliometric characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 525 OCs, and we found a publication rate of 40.38% corresponding to 212 publications, 78.8% of them in international journals. The most frequent journal of publication was Anales de Pediatría. The median and interquartile range values for the impact factor, quartile and number of citations were 2.86 (1.96-3.98), 2 (1-3) and 3 (0-7), respectively, with a remarkable increase in the impact factor for the most recent congresses. The median time elapsed to publication was 10 months (IQR, 1-23). The proportion published was higher for multicentre studies and those with a respiratory topic. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of publication for OCs submitted to SENeo congresses was similar to the frequency of publication for other paediatric congresses, with an impact factor that was above the mean of the congresses under study. The proportion of publication was higher for studies with a multicentre design or a respiratory topic.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Profile of scientific production on nursing technology construction, validity and application: a bibliometric study.

OBJECTIVE: to analyze the profile of scientific production on nursing technology construction, validity and application. METHODS: this is a bibliometric study, carried out in six databases, based on the Methodi Ordinatio application, arranged in nine stages. To represent the findings, the VOSviewer® software was used. RESULTS: 346 studies were identified, obtained from BDENF, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. There was a predominance of the English language, and 20% of the authors hold more than 25% of studies. Only two journals account for 25% of studies in the period studied. Twenty-six studies were selected for the InOrdinatio classification. Nursing Process (23%) stood out among the studies. The most produced technology was software (27%), and 50% of works describe construction and validity. CONCLUSIONS: there is an emphasis on the creation of educational technologies, especially information technology. The data demonstrates opportunities for future research in the area.

NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

Scholarly analytics for nurse practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Nurse practitioners who publish contribute to the profession's body of knowledge. Today's digitally inclined environment easily allows for the tracking of contributing to knowledge and impact. Four popular measures for tracking include Altmetric, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Authors should understand each tracking source's purpose, process, and value. The strengths and limitations of the tracking sources are reviewed. Awareness of the tracking sources and knowing how to influence the tools will bring additional attention to the authors.