Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

Comment on, "A randomized controlled trial of social media promotion in neurosurgical publishing".

The study titled "A randomized controlled trial of social media promotion in neurosurgical publishing" by Vieli et al. (2024) evaluates the impact of social media on citation counts, website visits, and PDF downloads in neurosurgical publishing. Through a rigorous randomized controlled trial, the authors provide valuable insights into the influence of social media in academia, an area with limited prior research. Despite the study's strong design, the modest social media intervention-limited to a single Twitter/X post per article-may have contributed to the lack of significant differences observed between the intervention and control groups. The study also did not account for engagement levels across different platforms or follower counts, limiting its generalizability. Future research should explore more intensive, multi-platform promotion strategies, and consider the influence of follower engagement. Expanding research to other medical fields would help to confirm the broader applicability of these findings.

The OHStat guidelines for reporting observational studies and clinical trials in oral health research: manuscript checklist.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Publication patterns of graduates from a DNP program with submission of a manuscript as a degree requirement.

BACKGROUND: Nurses who earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree are expected to make essential contributions to the scholarship of practice and the improvement of health care outcomes. The DNP program at Duke University School of Nursing requires that students demonstrate scholarship competence by writing a manuscript based on their DNP project and submitting it for publication. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to share an evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: The authors used a bibliometric study design. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that manuscripts authored by students based on the DNP projects they conduct while earning their DNP degree can be published and are cited by other scholars. Additionally, the majority of these authors continue to publish scholarly work in the nursing and broader health-focused literature after they graduate. CONCLUSION: Nurses who developed and submit manuscripts for publication based on their DNP project contribute to the literature and evidence base for practice.

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.