Society for Vascular Surgery best practice recommendations for use of social media.

The use of social media (SoMe) in medicine has demonstrated the ability to advance networking among clinicians and other healthcare staff, disseminate research, increase access to up-to-date information, and inform and engage medical trainees and the public at-large. With increasing SoMe use by vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists, it is important to uphold core tenets of our commitment to our patients by protecting their privacy, encouraging appropriate consent and use of any patient-related imagery, and disclosing relevant conflicts of interest. Additionally, we recognize the potential for negative interactions online regarding differing opinions on optimal treatment options for patients. The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) is committed to supporting appropriate and effective use of SoMe content that is honest, well-informed, and accurate. The Young Surgeons Committee of the SVS convened a diverse writing group of SVS members to help guide novice as well as veteran SoMe users on best practices for advancing medical knowledge-sharing in an online environment. These recommendations are presented here with the goal of elevating patient privacy and physician transparency, while also offering support and resources for infrequent SoMe users to increase their engagement with each other in new, virtual formats.

Prevalencia de la publicación de artículos científicos en médicos peruanos / Publication prevalence of scientific articles by Peruvian doctors

El objetivo de este trabajo fue determinar la prevalencia de la publicación de un artículo científico en una revista indexada y sus factores asociados en médicos peruanos durante el año 2016. Se realizó un análisis de datos secundarios de la Encuesta Nacional de Satisfacción de Usuarios en Salud (ENSUSALUD) 2016. La variable del resultado fue la publicación de un artículo en una revista indexada en Web of Science, Scopus o Medline, y las variables de exposición fueron de tipo sociodemográficas y académicas. Se utilizaron medias, desviación estándar, frecuencias y porcentajes, además de las pruebas de chi cuadrado y t de Student para evaluar las diferencias según la publicación de un artículo científico. Se elaboraron modelos de regresión logística crudos y ajustados. En todos los cálculos se consideró el muestreo complejo de la ENSUSALUD 2016. Se obtuvieron los datos de 2 216 médicos, de los cuales el 13,0 por ciento (IC 95 por ciento: 9,1-18,3) manifestaron que habían publicado un artículo científico en una revista científica indexada. En el modelo ajustado se encontró asociación entre la publicación de un artículo científico y la residencia en Lima (OR: 0,30; IC 95 por ciento: 0,17-0,53), el nivel de inglés intermedio (OR: 9,01; IC 95 por ciento: 2,24-36,70), el nivel de inglés avanzado (OR: 21,0; IC 95 por ciento: 4,74-93,12) y la especialidad médica (OR: 2,57; IC 95 por ciento: 1,08-6,12). La prevalencia de publicación de un artículo científico en médicos peruanos es baja. La residencia en Lima, el conocimiento intermedio y avanzado de inglés y la tenencia de una especialidad médica resultaron ser factores asociados a la publicación de un artículo científico(AU)

The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence of the publication of a scientific article in an indexed journal by Peruvian doctors and its associated factors during the year 2016. An analysis was performed of secondary data from the National Healthcare User Satisfaction Survey (ENSUSALUD) 2016. The result variable was the publication of an article in an indexed journal from the Web of Science, Scopus or Medline, whereas the exposure variables were sociodemographic and academic. Means, standard deviation, frequencies, percentages, and chi-square and Student's t test were used to evaluate the differences in the publication of a scientific article. Crude and adjusted logistic regression models were developed. ENSUSALUD 2016 complex sampling was considered in all estimations. Data were obtained about 2 216 doctors, of whom 13.0percent (CI 95percent: 9.1-18.3) reported having published a scientific article in an indexed scientific journal. The adjusted model found an association between the publication of a scientific article and residence in Lima (OR: 0.30; CI 95percent: 0.17-0.53), intermediate command of the English language (OR: 9.01; CI 95percent: 2.24-36.70), advanced command of the English language (OR: 21.0; CI 95percent: 4.74-93.12) and being a medical specialist (OR: 2.57; CI 95percent: 1.08-6.12). The publication prevalence of a scientific article by Peruvian doctors is low. Residence in Lima, intermediate or advanced command of the English language, and being a medical specialist were factors associated to the publication of a scientific article(AU)

Science, misinformation and digital technology during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Three interdependent factors are behind the current Covid-19 pandemic distorted narrative: (1) science´s culture of "publish or perish", (2) misinformation spread by traditional media and social digital media and (3) distrust of technology for tracing contacts and its privacy-related issues. In this short paper, I wish to tackle how these three factors have added up to give rise to a negative public understanding of science in times of a health crisis, such as the current Covid-19 pandemic and finally, how to confront all these problems.

The move to open: medical library leadership in scholarly communication.

Over the years, health sciences librarians have been change agents, leading the charge on issues of importance to the profession and the communities we serve. From its founding in 1898 with the Exchange, the Medical Library Association (MLA) has been dedicated to improving access to health information. In 2003, the Board of Directors published a statement supporting open access to information generated from federally funded scientific and medical research and maintained that having access to timely, relevant, and accurate information is vital to the health of the nation and its education and research programs. At some financial risk, the association made the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) open access and published the entire archive of JMLA and its predecessor, the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, in PubMed Central. Nearly two decades later, the promise of open access and open science finally seems to be coming to fruition. In the 2020 Janet Doe Lecture, Chris Shaffer, AHIP, described the ways that MLA has led the profession, standing behind a shared vision and "walking the walk." In challenging listeners to embrace open science, he affirmed that, as leaders in improving access to health sciences information since 1898, medical librarians must work in the open science arena to realize our vision "that quality information is essential for improved health."

Toward a more transparent, rigorous, and generative psychology.

Psychological Bulletin has long enjoyed a reputation as a source for what research has revealed about psychological phenomena; it maintains a prestigious position of leadership in psychological science and for science at large; it publishes evidence syntheses that are the most comprehensive and rigorous reviews available; it informs theorists and practitioners. I am duly honored to be selected as its editor; accordingly, my goal is to guard this tradition and, to the greatest extent possible, improve the rigor and transparency of submissions. Incorporating advances in evidence synthesis methods will help ensure that the Bulletin retains its esteemed position. Thus, I encourage the strongest possible scholarly evidence syntheses addressing central psychological issues. It is important to use contemporary methods for evidence synthesis because evidence syntheses are a form of metascience, using science to understand trends in science. Stronger methods have the potential to reduce error and the play of chance, making conclusions more trustworthy. Importantly, therefore, carefully conducted evidence syntheses offer the hope of transforming particular domains of research. Accordingly, this editorial will focus on some strategies that deserve, in my opinion, greater use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How to Submit a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips and Traps - Part III.

One of the main goals of clinicians is to constantly improve the healthcare by spreading their expertise and by introducing innovations in medical science. Therefore, publishing is of utmost importance. Moreover, publishing helps authors in developing their academic carrier. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. The aim of this paper, published in three parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively; the current part is addressing the actual writing workflow of a clinical paper and its submission process to a journal.

Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists.

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.

Cómo determinar en forma transparente y justa las autorías de un trabajo de investigación / How to determine in a transparent and fair way the authors of a research paper abstract

Para que una persona sea merecedora de la autoría de una investigación debe haber realizado alguna contribución académica sustancial para que esta pudiera llevarse a cabo y, además, ser capaz de dar cuenta públicamente de la integridad de sus procesos y sus resultados. Este artículo resume: 1) la matriz propuesta por L. W. Roberts para contribuir a definir las autorías durante las etapas iniciales de la investigación, 2) los criterios de autoría del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas para definir quiénes merecen dichos créditos y quiénes no, 3) la taxonomía de 14 roles propuesta por la Declaración CRediT para transparentar las tareas realizadas por cada una de las personas proclamadas autoras de una investigación biomédica y 4) las principales conductas que degradan la transparencia de las autorías. (AU)

For a person to deserve an investigation authorship he/she must have made some substantial academic contribution so that that research could be carried out and, in addition, must be able to publicly account for the integrity of their processes and their results. This article summarizes: 1) the matrix proposed by Roberts to help defining authorship during the initial stages of the investigation; 2) authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to define who deserves such credits and who does not; 3) the 14-role taxonomy proposed by the CRediT Declaration to transparent the tasks performed by each of the proclaimed authors of a biomedical research; 4) the main behaviors that degrade the transparency of authorships. (AU)

Suitability of YouTube Videos for Learning Knee Stability Tests: A Cross-sectional Review.

OBJECTIVE: To verify the suitability and reliability of YouTube videos pertaining to the 5 most commonly used knee stability tests for educational purposes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: YouTube videos were categorized into 2 groups according to their sources: professional and nonprofessional groups. Only videos that satisfied the purpose and procedure parts among comprehensiveness scores were defined as suitable for educational purposes. For evaluating the reliability, the modified DISCERN was used. One-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Research on YouTube videos (N=218) from November 13, 2019, to November 17, 2019, was done using the following keywords: "anterior drawer test knee," "Lachman test knee," "posterior drawer test," "valgus knee test," and "varus knee test." INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comprehensiveness score that focused on the purpose, procedure, interpretation, and limitations or precautions of the test were developed by the authors, and modified DISCERN score. RESULTS: In terms of the suitability for educational purposes, 126 videos (58%) were classified into the suitable group, and 92 (42%) were classified into the unsuitable group. Neither group had significantly more views, views per posting days, likes, dislikes, or posting days. When comparing the comprehensiveness and reliability scores of each group, significant differences between groups were identified. Only 47 videos met the limitations/precautions category. A total of 155 videos (71%) were from the professional group and 63 videos (29%) were from the nonprofessional group. Significant differences were found in views, views per posting days, likes, and dislikes between the professional group and nonprofessional group. CONCLUSIONS: YouTube should not be used for learning about knee stability tests. Professionals, especially those in rehabilitation medicine, should pay more attention to uploading high-quality videos with reliable content.

Fifty ways to improve presentations in urology. / Cincuenta consejos para mejorar las presentaciones en urología.

BACKGROUND: Our profession permanently demands intercommunication of medical knowledge among colleagues; either in small environments such as hospitals or at larger ones such as congresses or academic courses. New technologies such as PowerPoint® are not developed enough to provide good presentations, and its employment does not always grant effective results. OBJECTIVE: In order to improve our academic presentations, we present several tools that may help us avoid the most common mistakes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We have divided the analysis into 3 sections: structure of the presentation, slide design, presentation to the audience. Each section includes a list of 50 short tips. RESULTS: Fifty tips following the study objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence that supports the information on how to improve presentations is mostly based on expert opinions. However, almost every work agrees that presentations must use simple structures which does not make them less scientific; their content must be developed for a specific audience, and it must be the speaker, not the slides, who captures the audience attention. Making a simple and didactic presentation of complex content supported by multimedia tools is one of the speaker's highest intellectual challenges of these days.

Quality in peer review.

The theme of this year's Peer Review Week, Quality in Peer Review, reflects both the necessity of peer review and the growing uncertainty about its role in scholarly publishing. We support peer review that aims to improve manuscripts through critical evaluation before publication.