RESUMEN
In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics. RESULTS: OA articles (n = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a ß coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168-32.992 (P < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [ß = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749-399.524, P < .001] and PDF downloads [ß = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357-151.575, P < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles. CONCLUSION: The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing.
RESUMEN
Students that graduate with degrees in science may pursue a variety of career roles. Many of these roles may require them to read primary scientific literature (PSL) or even write up their own manuscripts for submission. While literature has recognized the importance of integrating PSL into undergraduate curriculum, it is also important for students to recognize the writing process that one may need to take part in if they seek to disseminate their own publications. This article will go through a research assignment that was given to an introductory journal club class for biology majors at a large R1 Hispanic-serving Institution. This assignment was designed to mirror the publication process at many journals including drafting a manuscript, integrating editor recommendations, and drafting a letter to the editor. In the end, students produce a review paper while becoming more familiar with the traditional publication process. In turn, this can prepare them to eventually seek to publish their own manuscripts.
RESUMEN
Introducción y objetivos: Los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados a menudo se presentan en conferencias médicas y se publican al mismo tiempo o después. Los predictores de publicación simultánea y sus consecuencias no están determinados. Nuestro objetivo es caracterizar la práctica de la publicación simultánea, identificar sus predictores y evaluar su impacto. Métodos: En este estudio transversal se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados presentados en sesiones de ciencia de última hora de importantes conferencias cardiovasculares desde 2015 hasta 2021. Se analizó la asociación entre las características del ensayo y el momento de la publicación. Se investigó el impacto de la publicación simultánea frente a la no simultánea en el número de citas a 1 año y menciones a 1 mes, así como en el total de citas y menciones en el seguimiento más largo observado. Resultados: De los 478 ensayos incluidos en el análisis, el 48,7% se publicó simultáneamente. Las publicaciones simultáneas tenían mayor probabilidad de presentarse en la sala principal de la conferencia (OR=6,09; IC95%, 1,34-36,92; p=0,029) y se caracterizaban por un tiempo de revisión más corto (OR=0,95; IC95%, 0,91-0,96; p<0,001). Las publicaciones simultáneas se asociaron con un mayor número de citas a 1 año (R2=43,81; IC95%, 23,89-63,73; p<0,001), menciones a 1 mes (R2=132,32; IC95%, 85,42-179,22; p<0,001) y total de citas (R2=222,89; IC95%, 127,98-317,80; p<0,001) en el seguimiento. Conclusiones: Los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados presentados en la sala principal de la conferencia y con un tiempo de revisión más corto tienen mayor probabilidad de publicarse simultáneamente. Las publicaciones simultáneas se asocian con más citas y menciones que las publicaciones no simultáneas. (AU)
Introduction and objectives: Randomized trials are often presented at medical conferences and published simultaneously or later. Predictors of simultaneous publication and its consequences are undetermined. Our aim was to characterize the practice of simultaneous publication, identify its predictors, and evaluate its impact. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included randomized trials presented at late-breaking science sessions of major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2021. The association of trial characteristics with the timing of publication was analyzed. The impact of simultaneous vs nonsimultaneous publication was investigated on the number of 1-year citations and 1-month mentions, and the total citations and mentions at the longest observation follow-up. Results: Of 478 trials included in the analysis, 48.7% were published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were more likely to be presented in the main conference room (OR, 6.09; 95%CI, 1.34-36.92; P=.029) and were characterized by a shorter review time (OR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.91-0.96; P<.001). Simultaneous publications were associated with higher 1-year citations (R2, 43.81; 95%CI, 23.89-63.73; P<.001), 1-month mentions (R2, 132.32; 95%CI, 85.42-179.22; P<.001) and total citations (R2, 222.89; 95%CI, 127.98-317.80; P<.001). Conclusions: Randomized trials presented in the main conference room and with shorter review time were more likely to be published simultaneously. Simultaneous publications were associated with more citations and mentions than nonsimultaneous publications. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Cardiología , Congresos como Asunto , Publicaciones , Factor de Impacto , Estudios TransversalesRESUMEN
Background There are a relatively limited number of emergency medicine (EM) medical education (MedEd) fellowships with few trainees at each program, creating barriers to local collaboration and networking. While best practices for developing MedEd journal clubs exist, there has not been an established national EM MedEd journal club. To address this need, we created a national journal club, the Council of Residency Directors (CORD) MedEd Journal Club (MEJC), to facilitate collaboration and networking opportunities by providing a synchronous online journal club. Objectives Our primary objective was to create a network for collaboration across geographical barriers to form a virtual community of practice (CoP) around the shared domain of evidence-based MedEd. Our secondary objective was to improve MedEd fellows' knowledge, skills, and attitudes surrounding MedEd research. Tertiary objectives included (1) broadening fellow exposure to key topics within MedEd, (2) describing how to develop scholarly work within MedEd, and (3) filling a perceived need for building a national MedEd virtual CoP. Curricular design The concept and objectives of the CORD MEJC were introduced to fellows and fellowship directors through a national listserv in March of 2022. Fellows volunteered to lead virtual sessions via Zoom on a monthly basis. Session fellow leaders independently chose the topics and were asked to submit two to three journal club articles discussing the topic at least two weeks in advance of each session. No topics were repeated throughout the academic year. Impact/effectiveness Our quality improvement survey results indicated that the CORD MEJC is meeting its primary and secondary objectives. Survey results will be utilized as part of a continuous quality improvement initiative to enhance our program structure and curricula for the 2023-2024 academic year.
RESUMEN
Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.
RESUMEN
Hydrocephalus represents a significant burden of disease, with more than 383,000 new cases annually worldwide. When the magnitude of this condition is considered, a centralized archive of pertinent literature is of great clinical value. From a neurosurgical standpoint, hydrocephalus is one of the most frequently treated conditions in the field. The focus of this study was to identify the top 100 journal articles specific to hydrocephalus using bibliometric analysis. Using the Journal of Citation Report database, 10 journals were identified. The Web of Science Core Collection was then searched using each journal name and the search term "hydrocephalus." The results were ordered by "Times Cited" and searched by the number of citations. The database contained journal articles from 1976 to 2021, and the following variables were collected for analysis: journal, article type, year of publication, and the number of citations. Journal articles were excluded if they had no relation to hydrocephalus, mostly involved basic science research, or included animal studies. Ten journals were identified using the above criteria, and a catalog of the 100 most cited publications in the hydrocephalus literature was created. Articles were arranged from highest to lowest citation number, with further classification by journal, article type, and publication year. Of the 100 articles referenced, 38 were review articles, 24 were original articles, 15 were comparative studies, 11 were clinical trials, six were multi-center studies, three were cross-sectional, and three were case reports with reviews. Articles were also sorted by study type and further stratified by etiology. If the etiology was not specified, studies were instead subcategorized by treatment type. Etiologies such as aqueductal stenosis, tumors, and other obstructive causes of hydrocephalus were classified as obstructive (n=6). Communicating (n=15) included idiopathic, normal pressure hydrocephalus, and other non-obstructive etiologies. The category "other" (n=3) was assigned to studies that included etiologies, populations, and/or treatments that did not fit into the classifications previously outlined. Through our analysis of highly cited journal articles focusing on different etiologies and the surgical or medical management of hydrocephalus, we hope to elucidate important trends. By establishing the 100 most cited hydrocephalus articles, we contribute one source, stratified for efficient referencing, to facilitate clinical care and future research on hydrocephalus.
RESUMEN
Journal clubs have been a staple in scientific communities, facilitating discussions on recent publications. However, the overwhelming volume of biomedical information poses a challenge in literature selection. This article provides an overview of journal club types and their efficacy in training potential peer reviewers, enhancing communication skills, and critical thinking. Originating in the 19th century, journal clubs have evolved from traditional in-person meetings to virtual or hybrid formats, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Face-to-face interactions offer personal connections, while virtual events ensure wider participation and accessibility. Organizing journal clubs demands effort, but it has several benefits, including promoting new publications and providing a platform for meaningful discussions. The virtual CardioRNA J-club experience exemplifies successful multidisciplinary collaboration, fostering international connections and inspiring new research. Journal clubs remain a vital component of academic research, equipping senior researchers with the latest developments and nurturing the next generation of scientists. As millennial and Gen Z researchers join the scientific field, journal clubs continue to evolve as a fertile ground for education and collaborative learning in an ever-changing scientific landscape.
RESUMEN
The Journal of Comparative Physiology A, also known as JCPA, was founded by Karl von Frisch and Alfred Kühn in 1924, then under its German title Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie. During the 100 years of its history, it became the leading international journal in comparative physiology and its daughter discipline, neuroethology. As such, it had a major impact on the development of these disciplines. In celebration of this achievement and the nearly 10,000 articles that appeared during the last 100 years, this Centennial Issue is published. Its authors reflect on the history of JCPA and the early pioneers, including women scientists, of comparative physiology; share the impact that the Journal had on their careers; discuss the benefit of the enormous taxonomic diversity of model systems used in studies published in JCPA; contrast this philosophy with the strategy of a limited number of standard biomedical model systems; review popular and trending research topics covered in JCPA; and, by interrogating the past, take a peek into the future of neuroethology.
RESUMEN
The Journal of Comparative Physiology A is the premier peer-reviewed scientific journal in comparative physiology, in particular sensory physiology, neurophysiology, and neuroethology. Founded in 1924 by Karl von Frisch and Alfred Kühn, it celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2024. During these 100 years, many of the landmark achievements in these disciplines were published in this journal. To commemorate these accomplishments, we have compiled a list of the Top 100 Authors over these 100 years, representing approximately 1% of all its authors. To select these individuals, three performance criteria were applied: number of publications, total number of citations attracted by these articles, and mean citation rate of the papers published by each author. The resulting list of the Top 100 Authors provides a fascinating insight into the history of the disciplines covered by the Journal of Comparative Physiology A and into the academic careers of many of their leading representatives.
Asunto(s)
Neurofisiología , Fisiología Comparada , Animales , HumanosRESUMEN
Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.
