Prepublicaciones: Estudio descriptivo / Preprints: Descriptive study

Los "preprint" o pre-publicaciones (PP) son el manuscrito final y completo de una investigación, disponible en formato abierto y que aún no fue revisada por pares. Esta modalidad acelera el tiempo de presentación de resultados, permite enriquecer la versión final con contribuciones de lectores, pero no son aún investigaciones respaldadas por revisión de pares. Aunque ya conocidos, desde la pandemia COVID-19 los PP han cobrado cada vez más importancia en investigación clínica. Desde 2020, PubMed Central (PMC), y por lo tanto PubMed, incluye PP sobre investigaciones financiadas por los National Institutes of Health (NIH) y que figuren en repositorios seleccionados. Conocer la proporción de PP que alcanzan la publicación luego de la revisión por pares podría dar una idea de la validez de este formato. (AU)

Bibliometric Analysis of the 200 Most Cited Articles in WORLD NEUROSURGERY.

BACKGROUND: WORLD NEUROSURGERY (WN) is among the most influential peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals and has had an explicitly global focus historically. The goal of the current study was to perform quantitative bibliographic and social network analyses to identify key contributors and trends influencing article citation patterns. METHODS: WN articles were searched using Web of Science and the sampling frame January 1, 1990, to June 18, 2020. Articles were sorted in decreasing order of total citations; the 200 most cited articles were included. BibExcel was used to calculate the H-index of the authors of the top 200 most cited articles; VOSViewer was used to visualize networks by document, author, and keyword. RESULTS: Twenty-one individual authors published at least 2 first-author articles within the 200 most cited manuscripts, including Hakuba (4 articles), Jaaskelainen (4 articles), Cho (3 articles), and Rhoton (3 articles). Authors with the highest H-index were Hernesniemi (5), Rhoton (4), Jaaskelainen (4), Hakuba (4), and Ausman (4). Articles by Huang (2006), Wieser (1982), and Foo (1981) had the largest number of links to other articles (connections between nodes). Ausman articles demonstrated the highest number of collaborations with coauthors who had also published top 200 articles. The most prevalent topics among included articles were neuro-oncology in the 1990s, cerebrovascular in the early 2000s, and skull base in the 2010s. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliographic analysis suggests that WN has published a wide range of novel and impactful research studies in neurosurgery, which collectively demonstrate strong collaborative trends in association with advancement of new tools and techniques in all aspects of neurosurgery.

Bringing evidence from press release to the clinic in the era of COVID-19.

The urgent need to develop effective therapeutics and disseminate information from clinical studies has led to data from clinical trials being made available by alternate methods prior to peer-reviewed publication, including press releases, social media and pre-print papers. While this allows clinicians more open access to these data, a trust has to be placed with the investigators releasing these data without the availability of scientifically rigorous peer review. The examples of results from trials studying dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 have had contrasting outcomes, including the potential for significant numbers of lives saved with the early release of results from the RECOVERY trial studying dexamethasone contrasting with unsubstantiated data being presented from trials studying hydroxychloroquine. Clinicians and researchers must maintain a healthy scepticism when reviewing results prior to peer-reviewed publication, but also consider when these opportunities may allow for early implementation of potentially lifesaving interventions for people infected with COVID-19.

On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises.

This paper analyzes the concordance between bibliometrics and peer review. It draws evidence from the data of two experiments of the Italian governmental agency for research evaluation. The experiments were performed by the agency for validating the adoption in the Italian research assessment exercises of a dual system of evaluation, where some outputs were evaluated by bibliometrics and others by peer review. The two experiments were based on stratified random samples of journal articles. Each article was scored by bibliometrics and by peer review. The degree of concordance between the two evaluations is then computed. The correct setting of the experiments is defined by developing the design-based estimation of the Cohen's kappa coefficient and some testing procedures for assessing the homogeneity of missing proportions between strata. The results of both experiments show that for each research areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics the degree of agreement between bibliometrics and peer review is-at most-weak at an individual article level. Thus, the outcome of the experiments does not validate the use of the dual system of evaluation in the Italian research assessments. More in general, the very weak concordance indicates that metrics should not replace peer review at the level of individual article. Hence, the use of the dual system in a research assessment might worsen the quality of information compared to the adoption of peer review only or bibliometrics only.

A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations.

The association between mention of scientific research in popular media (e.g., the mainstream media or social media platforms) and scientific impact (e.g., citations) has yet to be fully explored. The purpose of this study was to clarify this relationship, while accounting for some other factors that likely influence scientific impact (e.g., the reputations of the scientists conducting the research and academic journal in which the research was published). To accomplish this purpose, approximately 800 peer-reviewed articles describing original research were evaluated for scientific impact, popular media attention, and reputations of the scientists/authors and publication venue. A structural equation model was produced describing the relationship between non-scientific impact (popular media) and scientific impact (citations), while accounting for author/scientist and journal reputation. The resulting model revealed a strong association between the amount of popular media attention given to a scientific research project and corresponding publication and the number of times that publication is cited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. These results indicate that (1) peer-reviewed scientific publications receiving more attention in non-scientific media are more likely to be cited than scientific publications receiving less popular media attention, and (2) the non-scientific media is associated with the scientific agenda. These results may inform scientists who increasingly use popular media to inform the general public and scientists concerning their scientific work. These results might also inform administrators of higher education and research funding mechanisms, who base decisions partly on scientific impact.

The Inpatient Discharge Lounge as a Potential Mechanism to Mitigate Emergency Department Boarding and Crowding.

Delayed access to inpatient beds for admitted patients contributes significantly to emergency department (ED) boarding and crowding, which have been associated with deleterious patient safety effects. To expedite inpatient bed availability, some hospitals have implemented discharge lounges, allowing discharged patients to depart their inpatient rooms while awaiting completion of the discharge process or transportation. This conceptual article synthesizes the evidence related to discharge lounge implementation practices and outcomes. Using a conceptual synthesis approach, we reviewed the medical and gray literature related to discharge lounges by querying PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google and undertaking backward reference searching. We screened for articles either providing detailed accounts of discharge lounge implementations or offering conceptual analysis on the subject. Most of the evidence we identified was in the gray literature, with only 3 peer-reviewed articles focusing on discharge lounge implementations. Articles generally encompassed single-site descriptive case studies or expert opinions. Significant heterogeneity exists in discharge lounge objectives, features, and apparent influence on patient flow. Although common barriers to discharge lounge performance have been documented, including underuse and care team objections, limited generalizable solutions are offered. Overall, discharge lounges are widely endorsed as a mechanism to accelerate access to inpatient beds, yet the limited available evidence indicates wide variation in design and performance. Further rigorous investigation is required to identify the circumstances under which discharge lounges should be deployed, and how discharge lounges should be designed to maximize their effect on hospitalwide patient flow, ED boarding and crowding, and other targeted outcomes.

Perception of electronic peer review of SOAP notes among pharmacy students enrolling in their first pharmacotherapeutics course.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the perception of electronic peer review of subjective, objective, assessment, plan (SOAP) notes performed by pharmacy students during their first pharmacotherapeutic course experience. METHODS: In this single-center, cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was administered to students who had undergone an electronic peer review process of a SOAP note. Four areas were assessed: baseline knowledge, development of therapeutic plans, attitudes and perceptions on peer assessment in enhancing SOAP note writing skills, and perceptions of factors that were/would have been helpful toward providing and/or receiving peer assessment. RESULTS: One hundred students completed and returned the survey (response rate 61.3%). Most students (93%) reported no prior exposure to writing SOAP notes prior to their participation. SOAP note writing was a valuable component of the module, with most students (97%) recognizing that SOAP note writing skills are important for their future practice as pharmacists. Students also acknowledged that activities in the module improved their abilities to develop (93%) and communicate (80%) patient-specific therapeutic plans in the form of SOAP notes. CONCLUSIONS: Students were comfortable receiving an assessment of a SOAP note from a classmate, and most students indicated that their classmates could provide an honest assessment of their SOAP notes. The electronic peer review process allowed students to receive feedback on their work, and this learning strategy could be further extended to the education of other functional skills that are essential in pharmacy practice.

Melhorando a qualidade do processo de revisão por pares: instruções para os revisores da GGA / Improving the quality of peer review: GGA instructions for reviewers

A revisão por pares (peer review) é parte essencial e indissociável do processo editorial e de publicação acadêmica, contribuindo para a validação dos textos submetidos para revistas biomédicas. Boas revisões melhoram sobremaneira a qualidade dos manuscritos publicados e, por conseguinte, a reputação, o valor e a relevância da revista para os leitores. Este artigo especial incluiu as principais recomendações do Conselho Editorial da revista Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging aos seus atuais e futuros revisores, almejando a contínua evolução dos padrões de qualidade do processo de revisão por pares adotado pelo periódico. Além de discorrer sobre a importância e tipos de processos de revisão, como se dão o fluxo editorial e a seleção dos revisores, apresentamos recomendações gerais e específicas para a condução de um bom parecer.

Peer review is an essential and integral part of the editorial and academic publication process that contributes to validate manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. A good review can greatly improve the quality of published manuscripts, thereby improving the journal's reputation, value, and relevance to the reader. This special article includes the main recommendations of the editorial board of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging to its current and future reviewers, aiming at a continuous improvement of quality standards in the peer review process used by the journal. In addition, the importance and types of review processes are discussed, as well as the editorial flow and selection of reviewers, and general and specific recommendations are presented for carrying out good reviews.

Medicaid and CHIP Child Health Beneficiary Incentives: Program Landscape and Stakeholder Insights.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiary incentive programs for child health and garner key stakeholder insights on incentive program rationale, child and family engagement, and program evaluation. METHODS: We identified beneficiary health incentive programs from 2005 to 2018 through a search of peer-reviewed and publicly available documents and through semistructured interviews with 80 key stakeholders (Medicaid and managed-care leadership, program evaluators, patient advocates, etc). This study highlights insights from 23 of these stakeholders with expertise on programs targeting child health (<18 years old) to understand program rationale, beneficiary engagement, and program evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 82 child health-targeted beneficiary incentive programs in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Programs most commonly incentivized well-child checks (n = 77), preventive screenings (n = 30), and chronic disease management (n = 30). All programs included financial incentives (eg, gift cards, premium incentives); some also offered incentive material prizes (n = 12; eg, car seats). Loss-framed incentives were uncommon (n = 1; eg, lost benefits) and strongly discouraged by stakeholders. Stakeholders suggested family engagement strategies including multigenerational incentives or incentives addressing social determinants of health. Regarding evaluation, stakeholders suggested incentivizing evidence-based preventive services (eg, vaccinations) rather than well-child check attendance, and considering proximal measures of child well-being (eg, school functioning). CONCLUSIONS: As the landscape of beneficiary incentive programs for child health evolves, policy makers have unique opportunities to leverage intergenerational and social approaches for family engagement and to more effectively increase and evaluate programs' impact.

Peer review and publication delay

Selecting peer reviewers is a crucial stage of the editorial process that ensures the quality of scholarly publications. An alternative to selecting peer reviewers from data bases created with expressions of interest of volunteers consists in systematically searching PubMed for similar articles and inviting their authors to act as peer reviewers. Although this process might identify more appropriate peers, it also can increase the time of the editorial process. In 2018, Pharmacy Practice had to invite 4.70 (SE=0.33) potential reviewers per one accepting. The time from the first reviewer invitation to the last reviewer report received was 61 days (SE=2.1). These figures confirm the existence of a peer review crisis which is significantly increasing the publication delay

No disponible

Avoiding predatory journals: Quick peer review processes too good to be true.

PROBLEM: Nursing is experiencing the growth of predatory journals with questionable peer review processes. These journals publish submissions quickly and do not enhance the authors' reputation and scholarship of nursing. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive study design examined the legitimacy of the peer-review process described on the websites of predatory nursing journals. Posted review processes (n = 53) were examined for quality indicators related to language use, author control, and transparency. FINDINGS: Of the 53 predatory nursing journals describing a peer-review process, the majority indicated that all submitted content was sent for peer review (n = 34, 64.15%). Most journals did not describe the criteria on which submitted articles would be evaluated ( n = 39, 73.58%). Quality indicators for language included multiple grammatical errors and odd language and phrases ( n = 39, 73.58%). Author control of tracking, revisions, and review of galley proofs were inconsistent in the described peer-review processes. The majority did not provide a way to track a manuscript through the process ( n = 29, 54.72%). Most journals did not explain the types of peer review they conducted ( n = 31, 58.49%). CONCLUSION: Authors can sidestep the trap of publishing in predatory journals by paying attention to the peer review process when selecting a journal for publication.