Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics. METHODS: An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics. RESULTS: In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.

Comparative Analysis of Central Asian Publication Activity Using SCImago Journal & Country Rank Data in 1996-2021.

BACKGROUND: Central Asian countries (CACs) are less visible in the global scientific environment, despite their solid scientific nature. The current article aimed to assess the publication productivity of CACs since 1996 using SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). METHODS: This is a descriptive study. The SJR portal was used to retrieve the data. The Country Rankings section was viewed, and the Asiatic Region option was chosen. The most active countries and CACs' number of documents, number of citable documents, citations, self-citations, citations per document, and H index data were obtained. The number of documents from CACs was recorded annually to determine the ten-year trend (2012 to 2021). Scientific categories in which CACs were prolific were defined. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2021, 18,336,647 documents with Asian region origins were produced. The most active countries in the Asiatic Region were China (1st), Japan (2nd), India (3rd), South Korea (4th), and Taiwan (5th). According to the number of documents, Kazakhstan ranked 15th, Uzbekistan 19th, Kyrgyzstan 24th, Tajikistan 27th, and Turkmenistan 31st among the Asiatic Region countries. The total number of documents originating from CACS, which was 1,616 in 2012, increased to 9,780 in 2021 with an upward trend (6.05 fold increase). CONCLUSION: Despite a rising number of articles, CACs are not at the forefront of scientific productivity in the Asiatic Region. Kazakhstan is the leading country in scientific productivity among CACs. Nonetheless, the increasing quantity of articles from CACs over the last ten years suggests that these countries have the infrastructure and human resources to enhance scientific research and production.

Diversity of authors in the British Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics over the last 50 years.

AIMS: To explore any changes in the perceived gender and affiliation of first authors of papers published in the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and Journal of Orthodontics (JO), over the last 50 years. METHODS: Electronic hand searches of the BJO and JO from 1973 to 2021, were undertaken to identify research and clinical papers published the first volume of the BJO (1973-74) and then the first two volumes of each subsequent decade i.e. 1980-81; 1990-91 to 2020-21. Articles such as Editorials, Product Updates and Abstract summaries, were excluded.The perceived gender of the first author was identified from their forename, internet sources and/or personal knowledge, where possible. The country of the first author's affiliation was identified from the author details stated in the papers. The countries were then grouped into geographical areas. RESULTS: A total of 385 papers were identified with a steady increase from 1973 to 2021. There was a statistically significant increase in papers published by authors who were perceived to be female (odds ratio 8.33; 95% CI 4.75, 14.64). The increase in papers published by non-UK affiliated first authors was significant (odds ratio 5.01; 95% CI 2.78, 9.02). CONCLUSIONS: The Journal has seen a significant change, over the last 50 years, in its authorship profile from nearly exclusively male, UK based authors to more than 60% of published papers having a first author who was perceived as being female and 37% originating from outside the UK.

Publishing trends in the field of urgent care medicine from 2000 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: With a steady rise in the number of urgent care centers in the United States and the establishment of urgent care medicine as a specialty, research in the field is likely to emerge. OBJECTIVES: To perform a bibliometric analysis of published studies in the field of urgent care medicine over the past two decades. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted, including original and review articles pertaining to urgent care medicine published 2000-2020. Data abstracted from each article included publication year, journal, research study design, study population, clinical relevance (clinical or non-clinical), and study topics. RESULTS: A total of 144 publications from 94 peer-reviewed journals were analyzed. There has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications from 2010 to 2019. The most common study designs were retrospective (55.5%), study specific (24.3%), prospective (15.3%), and quality improvement (4.9%). Adults were the most frequently identified study population (33.3%), followed by pediatrics (18%), and both adults and pediatrics (16.7%). Publications were categorized as clinical (48.6%) and non-clinical (51.4%). The most common research topics were urgent care utilization [n = 34, 23.6%; especially effectiveness (n = 9) and disease based (n = 7)], diagnostic testing [(n = 20, 13.9%; especially HIV (n = 7) and sexually transmitted infections (n = 6)], and antibiotic stewardship (n = 17, 11.8%). CONCLUSION: Based on our sample, published research in the field of urgent care medicine has evolved. By describing current trends, we hope that clinicians and researchers continue to advance the field by developing high quality research, including prospective, multi-institutional/center studies involving both clinical and non-clinical topics.

Reference accuracy: authors', reviewers', editors', and publishers' contributions.

Scientific authors are responsible for the accuracy of their writings and references to others' works. However, relying on authors is not enough when it comes to processing their manuscripts. Joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers throughout the publishing process may prevent most reference errors. This article analyzes essential aspects of bibliographic management and focuses on the importance of validating references by all stakeholders of scholarly publishing.

The gender role in the publishing of Authorships in high-impact orthopedic journals.

To evidence the existence of a gender gap in the orthopedic scientific literature by including also differences between some specific orthopedic surgery specialities, such as hands and feet. Then, we also considered gender role in the Authorship linked with the economic wealth of each country belonging to each Author. The gender of the first Authors of journals on orthopedics and sports medicine indexing in the Scopus database with the highest impact factor (IF) related to the year 2019, for the period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, were considered. A total of 11 journals were considered, including a total of 5474 articles, 1087 (19.86%) had a woman as the first Author and 4387 (80.14%) a man. During the studied period, the trend seems to be the same (p = 0.906): Men were significantly more producing than women in the orthopedic field both by considering the topic of the journal (p = .003), all the most impacted orthopedic journals (p < 0.001) and economies (p < 0.001). There was therefore a strong significance: In the orthopedic field, there were significantly more male researchers who presented their first name in scientific publications compared to females in all orthopedic subspecialties. The economically poorer countries published less and the role of women became almost absent.

Technology and psychotherapeutic interventions: Bibliometric analysis of the past four decades.

BACKGROUND: Rapid growth of the integration of technology and psychotherapeutic interventions has been noted, but no clear quantification of this growth has been done. AIMS: This bibliometric analysis seeks to quantify the growth, trends, and applications of technology in psychotherapeutic interventions over the last 40 years. METHODS: Searches were conducted in the Web of Science (WOS) database for all existing technology-psychotherapy-related publications from 1981 to October 2020. Search terms were refined using a systematic screening strategy, based upon Cochrane protocol, generating 52 technology terms. Analyses across 40 years and by decade from 1981 to 2020 were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 13,934 peer-reviewed articles were identified. Yearly publication rate has increased from one in 1981 to 1902 by October 2020. The growth rate of publications across decades consistently tripled in size (762.50% from the 1980s to 1990s, 539.71% from the 1990s to 2000s, and 337.24% from the 2000s to 2010s). The author, country, journal, and institution with the most publications were Andersson, G., USA, Journal of Medical Internet Research, and Karolinska Institute, respectively. The most frequent technology search term across all four decades was "internet*." The trends in percentages of peer-reviewed publications within each decade showed: 1) a declining trend for the term "computer," 2) an upward trend for the combined terms, "internet," "online," and "web," 3) and a steady but smaller proportion of publications for other terms ("cell phone," "phone/telephone," "technology," "video," "virtual reality or VR," "apps," "digital," "machine learning," "electronic," "robo," and "telehealth"). DISCUSSION: The rapid growth and trends identified in technology and psychotherapy publications can inform related policies addressing the role of technology in mental health. Moreover, pattern analyses may provide direction for a standard nomenclature to address terminology usage inconsistencies across the field.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) research: A bibliometric analysis of publication trends over the first 20 years.

BACKGROUND: The relative health and robustness of a field of research can be approximated by assessing peer reviewed journal publication trends for articles pertinent to the field. To date, there have been no such assessments of the burgeoning research on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). OBJECTIVE: The overall goal of this study was to examine ACEs research trends using bibliometric methods. More specifically, we sought to describe observed publication trends of the ACEs literature from its inception in the late 1990s. We also analyzed the nature of ACEs publications with regard to key characteristics of main outcomes, levels of analysis, and populations of primary focus. METHODS: A search was conducted using Scopus to identify English language papers on ACEs published in peer-reviewed journals between 1998 and 2018. The primary field of research was determined by having independent raters code the title of the publishing journal into distinct categories. Main research outcomes were similarly coded. RESULTS: A total of 789 articles on ACEs appearing in 351 different academic journals were published between 1998 and 2018. There was considerable growth in the number of ACEs papers published over the past several years. General medicine and multidisciplinary research were the most frequent of 12 primary fields of research characterizing ACEs research. Of 16 primary outcomes on which ACEs research focused, the most common were mental health and physical health. CONCLUSION: Significant growth in ACEs research over the past several years suggest the field is thriving. Observed publication trends and publication characteristics are discussed briefly.

A Descriptive Study Examining Trends in Pharmacist-Authored Original Research Publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network from 2000 to 2019.

Pharmacists are expected to participate in the conduction of research to advance the profession and health care broadly. Additional opportunities for pharmacist research engagement have emerged with the increased integration of clinically trained pharmacists into interprofessional care teams. Research conducted over the past four decades has demonstrated an increasing trend of pharmacist-authored publications in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to build upon this work and investigate trends in pharmacist-authored original research publications within the JAMA Network over the past 20 years. A descriptive study design was used to retrospectively evaluate trends in the numbers of pharmacist-authored publications and authorship within those publications in nine JAMA Network journals. Data were aggregated into ten-year time periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2019) and compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Overall, pharmacist-authored publications significantly increased over the ten-year period (2.0% to 3.0%, p < 0.001), including in five specific journals: JAMA, JAMA Dermatology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and JAMA Surgery. There was no change in first-and senior-authored publications. While the overall pharmacist publication trend was positive, room for significant growth remains. A deeper understanding of the barriers and facilitators to pharmacist engagement in research is needed, along with strategies to enhance pharmacist research training.

Peer Review Week 2020: Insights into Building Trust in Peer Review.

Abstract.

Citation classics in pediatrics: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Citation analysis provides insights into the history and developmental trajectory of scientific fields. Our objective was to perform an analysis of citation classics in the journals of pediatric specialty and to examine their characteristics. METHODS: Initially, all the journals listed under the category of pediatrics (n = 120) were identified using Journal Citation Reports. Web of science database was then searched (1950-2016) to select the top-100 cited articles in the above identified pediatric journals. The top-100 cited article were categorized according the study design, sub-specialty, country, institutional affiliation, and language. RESULTS: The top-100 articles were published in 18 different journals, with Pediatrics having the highest numbers (n = 40), followed by The Journal of Pediatrics (n = 17). The majority (n = 62) of classics were published after 1990. The most cited article had citation count of 3516 and the least cited had a citation count of 593. The USA (n = 71) was the most commonly represented country, and 60 institutions contributed to 100 articles. Fifteen authors contributed to more than one classic as first or second author. Observational study (n = 55) was the commonest study design across all decades, followed by reviews (n = 12), scale development studies (n = 11), and guidelines (n = 11). Among the pediatric sub-specialties, growth and development articles were highly cited (n = 24), followed by pediatric psychiatry and behavior (n = 21), endocrinology (n = 15), and neonatology (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: The top-100 cited articles in pediatrics identify the impactful authors, journals, institutes, and countries. Observational study design was predominant-implying that inclusion among citation classics is not related to soundness of study design.

Scientia Medica ? Novas diretrizes para autores [Editorial] / Scientia Medica ? New guidelines for authors [Editorial]

Atualmente o volume de informação científica é enorme. Os periódicos científicos são numerosos e o número de pesquisas publicadas é crescente. Assim, torna-se importante que os artigos de revisão da literatura observem uma metodologia que evite vieses na seleção dos trabalhos e permita que os leitores tenham a informação exata sobre as fontes consultadas e os critérios de seleção do conteúdo.

Currently the volume of scientific information is enormous. Scientific journals are numerous and the number of published research is growing. Thus, it becomes important that the literature review articles observe a methodology that avoids bias in the selection of works and allow readers to have accurate information about the sources consulted, and the selection criteria of the content.