From master's thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process.

BACKGROUND: Medical student master's theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master's theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. METHODS: A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. RESULTS: We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019-2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. CONCLUSION: A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.

Turkish health field periodical editors' Views on publication process and ethical problems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed in this study to investigate views and suggestions of health field editors about the publication process and ethical problems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 42 journal editors who accepted to participate in the study. The data were collected through 70-item "Editor Views Questionnaire" which was developed by the researchers in line with the related literature. RESULTS: The editors who participated in the study were asked about their views about the most common problems they encountered related to publication ethics; the top three problems indicated by the editors included unjustified authorship (40.5%), duplicate publication (33.3%), and falsification (26.2%). An analysis of the problems encountered in the initial evaluation stage revealed the top three issues as articles that did not follow the writing rules of the journal (33.3%), unqualified articles (30.1%), and negligence of the author(s) (14.3%). Views in relation to the problems about the referee evaluation stage included evaluations that were not completed within the time given (28.6%), insufficient importance attached to the evaluation (23.9%), and inability to find sufficient number of referees (16.7%). CONCLUSION: some editors were found to encounter violation of publication ethics, to experience problems in the revision stage, and not to feel fully independent in their contribution to article publication and thus the improvement of the journal quality. Identification of journal editors' views and problems is an important step for the solution to these problems; it could thus contribute to improving the quality of publication process and journal quality.

Sharing Perioperative Nursing Expertise Through Publication: A Guide for the Novice Author.

Perioperative nurses can share their expertise by writing for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Writing can help perioperative nurses grow their professional careers and advance the science of the perioperative nursing specialty. Despite the value and importance of publishing, perioperative nurses may lack confidence and fear rejection and negative feedback; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the authoring and publishing processes can assuage these fears. This education article describes concepts associated with scholarly publishing for authors and offers strategies to encourage perioperative nurses to share their practice experiences or research via peer-reviewed journals. Key steps associated with the writing and publication process are described. The article also explains the editorial and peer-review processes and provides supportive strategies for authors when a manuscript is not accepted initially.

The Peer Review Process.

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.

Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science.

Addressing the 'replication crisis' and questionable research practices are at the forefront of international research agendas in clinical psychological science. The aim of this paper is to consider how the quality of research practices can be improved by a specific focus on publication practices. Currently, the responsibility for documenting quality research practices is primarily placed on authors. However, barriers to improved quality publication practices cut across all levels of the research community and require a broader approach that shares the burden for ensuring the production of high quality publications. We describe a framework that is intended to be ambitious and aspirational and encourage discussion and adoption of strategies to improve quality publication practices (QPPs). The framework cuts across multiple stakeholders and is designed to enhance (a) the quality of reporting; (b) adherence to protocols and guidelines; (c) timely accessibility of study materials and data. We discuss how QPPs might be improved by (a) funding bodies considering formally supporting QPPs; (b) research institutions encouraging a research culture that espouses quality research practices, and internally supporting QPP review processes and professional development in QPPs; (c) journals expanding editorial teams to include reviewers with design and statistical expertise, considering strategies to enhance QPP adherence during the peer review process, and committing to ongoing assessment and development of QPP training for peer reviewers; and (d) authors and peer reviewers integrating QPPs during the manuscript preparation/peer review process, engaging in ongoing QPP training, and committing to openness and transparency initiatives. We discuss the current state and potential next steps within each stage of the framework and provide information and resources to enhance QPPs. We hope that the suggestions offered here inspire research institutions, leaders and faculty to discuss, reflect on, and take action towards, integrating these, or other, QPPs into their research practice and workplace.

Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.

BACKGROUND: Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. METHODS: Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals' impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications (p = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications' journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-3.6) and corresponding authors' median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3-20) and 27 (IQR, 10-77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3-8) and 7 months (IQR, 5-12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2-4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1-1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% (n = 186) of respondents. CONCLUSION: Corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals.

Anatomy and physiology of a scientific paper.

Writing and publishing a scientific paper in academic journals is a highly competitive, time-consuming stepwise process. The road to scientific writing and publication is rarely straightforward. Scientific writing has uniform format, which is perplexing for the novice science writers due to its inflexible anatomy (structure) and physiology (functions). Many obstacles are allied with the scientific writing path which can be minimized by applying some simple guidelines and practices. The scientific papers have an almost similar format but, original articles are divided into distinct sections and each segment contains a specific type of information. The basic anatomy of scientific papers is mainly comprised of the structure of the various components of a scientific paper, including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments and references. However, the physiology of a scientific paper is difficult to understand. Early career researchers and trainees may be less familiar with the various components of scientific papers. In this study, we applied an observational approach to describe the essential steps to facilitate the readers and writers to understand the basic characteristics, anatomy and physiology of writing the various sections of a scientific paper for an academic science journal.

What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey.

PURPOSE: This study identifies the personal and professional profiles of researchers with a greater potential to publish high-impact academic articles. METHOD: The study involved conducting an international survey of journal authors using a web-based questionnaire. The survey examined personal characteristics, funding, and the perceived barriers of research quality, work-life balance, and satisfaction and motivation in relation to career. The processes of manuscript writing and journal publication were measured using an online questionnaire that was developed for this study. The responses were compared between the two groups of researchers using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 269 questionnaires were analysed. The researchers shared some common perceptions; both groups reported that they were seeking recognition (or to be leaders in their areas) rather than financial remuneration. Furthermore, both groups identified time and funding constraints as the main obstacles to their scientific activities. The amount of time that was spent on research activities, having >5 graduate students under supervision, never using text editing services prior to the publication of articles, and living in a developed and English-speaking country were the independent variables that were associated with their article getting a greater chance of publishing in a high-impact journal. In contrast, using one's own resources to perform studies decreased the chance of publishing in high-impact journals. CONCLUSIONS: The researchers who publish in high-impact journals have distinct profiles compared with the researchers who publish in low-impact journals. English language abilities and the actual amount of time that is dedicated to research and scientific writing, as well as aspects that relate to the availability of financial resources are the factors that are associated with a successful researcher's profile.

Peer review and the publication process.

AIMS: To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. DESIGN: Discussion paper. METHODS: This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. RESULTS: There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work.

Here I outline some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems. First, the motivation behind questionable research practices is examined (the desire to get ahead or, at least, not fall behind). Next, behavior modification strategies are discussed, pointing out that reward works better than punishment. Humans are utility seekers and the implementation of current change initiatives is hindered by high initial buy-in costs and insufficient expected utility. Open science tools interested in improving science should team up, to increase utility while lowering the cost and risk associated with engagement. The best way to realign individual and group motives will probably be to create one, centralized, easy to use, platform, with a profile, a feed of targeted science stories based upon previous system interaction, a sophisticated (public) discussion section, and impact metrics which use the associated data. These measures encourage high quality review and other prosocial activities while inhibiting self-serving behavior. Some advantages of centrally digitizing communications are outlined, including ways the data could be used to improve the peer review process. Most generally, it seems that decisions about change design and implementation should be theory and data driven.