Researchers' And Medical Student' Experience in Reference Management Software in a Low-Income Country.

INTRODUCTION: Although the use of Reference Management Software (RMS) is increasing in developed countries, they seem to be unknown and less used in low-income countries. AIM: To discover the major trends in the use of RMS among researchers and Ph.D. students in Tunisia, as a low-income country. METHODS: A hardcopy survey was filled out by researchers and Ph.D. students during an educational seminar at the faculty of medicine of Sfax in 2016 with the aim to collect qualitative data to determine the participants' knowledge and use of RMS. RESULTS: The survey collected 121 participants, among them, 53.7% know RMS. Mendeley proved to be the best-known software (41.5%), followed by Zotero (35.3%) and Endnote (23%). Training sessions in RMS were taken by 5% of participants. Among the 121 participants, 26.5%of them use RMS., Mendeley was the most used (46.9%), followed by EndNote (28.1%) and Zotero (25%). The most commonly popular feature in RMS is inserting citations (66.9%). Therefore, the analysis, of the reasons behind the choice of RMS proves that the software was used because it is convenient (38.4%),  most known (38.4%),  easy (30.7%), or suggested by colleagues (30.7%). The free and open-source software was preferred by 81% of the participants. g. However, 50.4% ignore the fact that Zotero is free. Several types and sources of captured citations were unknown by 53.8% and 59% of the rest of the participants. CONCLUSION: The results clearly show that the lack of awareness about RMS in Tunisia is due to the absence of a formal training. As a result, the need for such training is highly important for researchers to be able to benefit from the different advantages of RMS while conducting their academic medical education.

Knowledge production on sport economics: a systematic review / Produção do conhecimento sobre economia do esporte: uma revisão sistemática

ABSTRACT The study analyzes the scientific production that deals with the economic activity of the sport. This is a systematic review that evaluates scientific papers published in the last Olympic cycle (2012-2016) in national and international journals, in English, Spanish and Portuguese, indexed to the Portal of Journals of Capes (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel). From the content analysis, 355 studies were examined that, despite their diversity, were grouped into 16 categories. The considerations suggest an ample process of commercialization of the sport as a cultural commodity and, also, vehicle of sale and propagation of other products.

RESUMO O estudo analisa a produção científica que versa sobre a atividade econômica do esporte. Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática que avalia artigos científicos publicados no último ciclo olímpico (2012-2016) em periódicos nacionais e internacionais, em língua inglesa, espanhola e portuguesa, indexados ao Portal de Periódicos da Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior). Foram analisados, a partir da análise de conteúdo, 355 estudos que, a despeito de sua diversidade, foram agrupados em 15 categorias. As considerações sugerem um amplo processo de comercialização do esporte enquanto uma mercadoria cultural e, também, veículo de venda e propagação de outros produtos.

Conflictos éticos en el editorialismo científico: el autoplagio / Ethical conflicts in scientific publishing: self-plagiarism

No disponible

La formación en Medicina del Trabajo, cambiar para mejorar / Occupational Medicine training, the change to improving

No disponible

[Limiting a Medline/PubMed query to the "best" articles using the JCR relative impact factor]. / Limiter une requête Medline/PubMed aux articles publiés dans les revues les plus citées de chaque discipline.

BACKGROUND: Medline/PubMed is the most frequently used medical bibliographic research database. The aim of this study was to propose a new generic method to limit any Medline/PubMed query based on the relative impact factor and the A & B categories of the SIGAPS score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The entire PubMed corpus was used for the feasibility study, then ten frequent diseases in terms of PubMed indexing and the citations of four Nobel prize winners. The relative impact factor (RIF) was calculated by medical specialty defined in Journal Citation Reports. The two queries, which included all the journals in category A (or A OR B), were added to any Medline/PubMed query as a central point of the feasibility study. RESULTS: Limitation using the SIGAPS category A was larger than the when using the Core Clinical Journals (CCJ): 15.65% of PubMed corpus vs 8.64% for CCJ. The response time of this limit applied to the entire PubMed corpus was less than two seconds. For five diseases out of ten, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than with the CCJ. For the four Nobel prize winners, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than the CCJ. CONCLUSION: The feasibility study to apply a new filter based on the relative impact factor on any Medline/PubMed query was positive.