Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 4.290
Filtrar
2.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol ; 259(3): 733-744, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33537883

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the gender gap in academic publishing. This study assesses COVID-19's impact on ophthalmology gender authorship distribution and compares the gender authorship proportion of COVID-19 ophthalmology-related articles to previous ophthalmology articles. METHODS: This cohort study includes authors listed in all publications related to ophthalmology in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset and CDC COVID-19 research database. Articles from 65 ophthalmology journals from January to July 2020 were selected. All previous articles published in the same journals were extracted from PubMed. Gender-API determined authors' gender. RESULTS: Out of 119,457 COVID-19-related articles, we analyzed 528 ophthalmology-related articles written by 2518 authors. Women did not exceed 40% in any authorship positions and were most likely to be middle, first, and finally, last authors. The proportions of women in all authorship positions from the 2020 COVID-19 group (29.6% first, 31.5% middle, 22.1% last) are significantly lower compared to the predicted 2020 data points (37.4% first, 37.0% middle, 27.6% last) (p < .01). The gap between the proportion of female authors in COVID-19 ophthalmology research and the 2020 ophthalmology-predicted proportion (based on 2002-2019 data) is 6.1% for overall authors, 7.8% for first authors, and 5.5% for last and middle authors. The 2020 COVID-19 authorship group (1925 authors) was also compared to the 2019 group (33,049 authors) based on journal category (clinical/basic science research, general/subspecialty ophthalmology, journal impact factor). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 amplified the authorship gender gap in ophthalmology. When compared to previous years, there was a greater decrease in women's than men's academic productivity.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Oftalmología/tendencias , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Sexo , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos Mujeres/estadística & datos numéricos
6.
Zool Res ; 42(1): 1-2, 2021 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448190

RESUMEN

Since its establishment in 1980, Zoological Research ( ZR) has walked with many scientists during their academic careers (Yao & Zhang, 2015; Yao et al., 2019). During this joyful holiday season and hopeful new year, we are incredibly pleased to share our wonderful news with all authors, readers, editorial board members, and peer reviewers of ZR. Due to its growing academic influence over the last several years, ZR has attained its highest impact factor to date, reaching 2.638 by the end of 2019 (Q1, 12th/169 SCI journals). Furthermore, its current CiteScore has reached 4.3 (as of December 2020), a nearly 60% increase since 2019. Meanwhile, both the publishing capacity and efficiency of ZR have continued to expand. We are immensely proud of each of our efforts in promoting ZR. Of note, your enduring support and faith have helped drive the sustained growth and advancement of ZR, which continues to evolve as a prominent journal in the zoological field.


Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/historia , Zoología , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Factor de Impacto de la Revista/historia , Zoología/historia
7.
Immunology ; 162(1): 1-2, 2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33305861

RESUMEN

2020 was a year unlike any other for Immunology. Through the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with fantastic support from the global immunology community, we worked together to reach new heights. Here, we look back at some of the highlights for Immunology in a challenging and memorable year.


Asunto(s)
Alergia e Inmunología/tendencias , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendencias , Políticas Editoriales , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Factor de Impacto de la Revista
8.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig ; 113(1): 1-3, 2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33327726

RESUMEN

The year 2020 will be remembered for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which has been the greatest ever healthcare crisis for the National Health Service. In Spain there have been more than 1,556,730 cases and 42,619 deaths, as well as 20,268 elderly people who have died in nursing homes and 63,000 healthcare professionals infected (as of November 2020).


Asunto(s)
/epidemiología , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Políticas Editoriales , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , España/epidemiología
9.
10.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244407, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33351845

RESUMEN

Measuring the impact of public health science or research is important especially when it comes to health outcomes. Achieving the desired health outcomes take time and may be influenced by several contributors, making attribution of credit to any one entity or effort problematic. Here we offer a science impact framework (SIF) for tracing and linking public health science to events and/or actions with recognized impact beyond journal metrics. The SIF was modeled on the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Degrees of Impact Thermometer, but differs in that SIF is not incremental, not chronological, and has expanded scope. The SIF recognizes five domains of influence: disseminating science, creating awareness, catalyzing action, effecting change and shaping the future (scope differs from IOM). For public health, the goal is to achieve one or more specific health outcomes. What is unique about this framework is that the focus is not just on the projected impact or outcome but rather the effects that are occurring in real time with the recognition that the measurement field is complex, and it takes time for the ultimate outcome to occur. The SIF is flexible and can be tailored to measure the impact of any scientific effort: from complex initiatives to individual publications. The SIF may be used to measure impact prospectively of an ongoing or new body of work (e.g., research, guidelines and recommendations, or technology) and retrospectively of completed and disseminated work, through linking of events using indicators that are known and have been used for measuring impact. Additionally, linking events offers an approach to both tell our story and also acknowledge other players in the chain of events. The value added by science can easily be relayed to the scientific community, policy makers and the public.


Asunto(s)
Evaluación del Impacto en la Salud/métodos , Salud Pública , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Modelos Teóricos
11.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244423, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33382777

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Propensity score techniques can reduce confounding and bias in observational studies. Such analyses are able to measure and balance pre-determined covariates between treated and untreated groups, leading to results that can approximate those generated by randomized prospective studies when such trials are not feasible. The most commonly used propensity score -based analytic technique is propensity score matching (PSM). Although PSM popularity has continued to increase in medical literature, improper methodology or methodological reporting may lead to biased interpretation of treatment effects or limited scientific reproducibility and generalizability. In this study, we aim to characterize and assess the quality of PSM methodology reporting in high-impact otolaryngologic literature. METHODS: PubMed and Embase based systematic review of the top 20 journals in otolaryngology, as measured by impact factor from the Journal Citations Reports from 2012 to 2018, for articles using PSM analysis throughout their publication history. Eligible articles were reviewed and assessed for quality and reporting of PSM methodology. RESULTS: Our search yielded 101 studies, of which 92 were eligible for final analysis and review. The proportion of studies utilizing PSM increased significantly over time (p < 0.001). Nearly all studies (96.7%, n = 89) specified the covariates used to calculate propensity scores. Covariate balance was illustrated in 67.4% (n = 62) of studies, most frequently through p-values. A minority (17.4%, n = 16) of studies were found to be fully reproducible according to previously established criteria. CONCLUSIONS: While PSM analysis is becoming increasingly prevalent in otolaryngologic literature, the quality of PSM methodology reporting can be improved. We provide potential recommendations for authors regarding optimal reporting for analyses using PSM.


Asunto(s)
Otolaringología , Puntaje de Propensión , Proyectos de Investigación/tendencias , Sesgo , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto
12.
Int J Paediatr Dent ; 31 Suppl 1: 4-13, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33314319

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Even though considered as studies with high methodological power, many RCTs in paediatric dentistry do not have essential quality items in their design, development, and report, making results' reliability questionable, replication challenging to conduct, wasting time, money, and efforts, and even exposing the participants to research for no benefit. AIM: We addressed the main topics related to transparency in clinical research, with an emphasis in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: We searched for all controlled clinical trials published from January 2019 up to July 2020 in the three paediatric dentistry journals with high journal Impact Factor, indexed on Medline. These papers were assessed for transparency according to Open Science practices and regarding reporting accuracy using some items required by CONSORT. RESULTS: 53.6% of the studies declared registration, 75% had sample size calculation, 98.2% reported randomisation, and from those, 65.4% explained the randomisation method. Besides that, no study shared their data, and 6.8% were published in open access format. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, a large proportion of RCTs in paediatric dental research show a lack of transparency and reproducibility.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Dental , Informe de Investigación , Niño , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Publicaciones , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Proyectos de Investigación
13.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23801, 2020 Dec 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371154

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the styles used in background sections of systematic reviews (SR) and to identify which styles if any were related to the publication in high-impact-factor (HIF) medical journals. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study for original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018. We randomly included 90 articles from top 10 HIF journals and 90 from others, respectively. We conducted a content analysis to classify the background styles. We assessed the factors associated with the publication in HIF journals. RESULTS: We found 6 categories. We defined 6 categories as follows: Update of prior SR, New in scope than prior SR, Higher quality than prior SR, Completely new SR, Limitations of primary studies only, and Not presenting unknown in prior SR or primary studies. All 6 categories were not related to the publication in HIF journals. CONCLUSIONS: We found 6 categories of styles in background sections of SR, none of which however were related to publication in HIF journals. SR authors may wish to use any of these categories to communicate the importance of their research questions.


Asunto(s)
Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto/métodos , Estudios Transversales , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendencias
16.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(44): e22885, 2020 Oct 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33126338

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Publications regarding the 100 top-cited articles in a given discipline are common, but studies reporting the association between article topics and their citations are lacking. Whether or not reviews and original articles have a higher impact factor than case reports is a point for verification in this study. In addition, article topics that can be used for predicting citations have not been analyzed. Thus, this study aims to METHODS:: We searched PubMed Central and downloaded 100 top-cited abstracts in the journal Medicine (Baltimore) since 2011. Four article types and 7 topic categories (denoted by MeSH terms) were extracted from abstracts. Contributors to these 100 top-cited articles were analyzed. Social network analysis and Sankey diagram analysis were performed to identify influential article types and topic categories. MeSH terms were applied to predict the number of article citations. We then examined the prediction power with the correlation coefficients between MeSH weights and article citations. RESULTS: The citation counts for the 100 articles ranged from 24 to 127, with an average of 39.1 citations. The most frequent article types were journal articles (82%) and comparative studies (10%), and the most frequent topics were epidemiology (48%) and blood and immunology (36%). The most productive countries were the United States (24%) and China (23%). The most cited article (PDID = 27258521) with a count of 135 was written by Dr Shang from Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University (China) in 2016. MeSH terms were evident in the prediction power of the number of article citations (correlation coefficients  = 0.49, t = 5.62). CONCLUSION: The breakthrough was made by developing dashboards showing the overall concept of the 100 top-cited articles using the Sankey diagram. MeSH terms can be used for predicting article citations. Analyzing the 100 top-cited articles could help future academic pursuits and applications in other academic disciplines.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Medical Subject Headings , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendencias , Publicaciones , Predicción , Humanos , Redes Sociales en Línea , PubMed , Publicaciones/clasificación , Publicaciones/normas , Publicaciones/estadística & datos numéricos
17.
An Acad Bras Cienc ; 92(suppl 2): e20181263, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33084755

RESUMEN

English is the lingua franca for scientific communication, but some journals, especially in developing countries, still publish non-English studies. A shift towards publishing in English may promote internationalization and more visibility of scientific journals. Here we compared quality indexes between Brazilian journals that have always published in English and journals that have published in languages other than English. We also investigated whether a temporal shift towards publishing in English led to elevated quality measures. Our analyses covered 16 Brazilian biodiversity journals and accounted for 12640 papers published since 2007. The mean impact factor was on average 55% higher in journals that have published consistently in English, compared to the so-called multilanguage journals. The proportion of publications in English increased to nearly three times the original value in multilanguage journals between 2007 and 2016, and the impact factor tripled during this period. At the same time, the Qualis-Capes classifications (B1-B2-B3) tended to fall. Publishing in English can be a first step to increased visibility, and this is particularly important for biodiversity journals, since Brazilian ecosystems are considered of interest to the international scientific community and nature conservation.


Asunto(s)
Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Biodiversidad , Brasil , Ecosistema , Lenguaje , Edición
20.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 34(5): 430-434, sept.-oct. 2020. tab
Artículo en Inglés | IBECS | ID: ibc-198864

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe the biomedical journal characteristics that are associated with the retraction of papers. METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All papers retracted and indexed in PubMed from January 1st 2013 to December 31st, 2016 were included. We used nine main categories to classify retractions: aspects related with data, authors issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other, and unknown. These categories were further classified as: misconduct, suspicion of misconduct, or no misconduct. RESULTS: The proportion of retraction was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Retractions appeared in 611 journals. During the study period, retraction due to misconduct was more frequent among journals with low-impact factor. Within these retracted publications, among low-impact journals the presence of misconduct was higher with a 73% compared to 61% for the high-impact journals (p = 0.001). There were differences in the percentage of retractions due to misconduct regarding the journal classification category (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Retraction of publications is present in both high- and low-impact factor biomedical journals, but misconduct is more frequent among the papers retracted from lower impact journals. Measures before and after publication should be taken to limit misconduct


OBJETIVO: Describir qué características de las revistas científicas biomédicas se asocian con la retractación de artículos. MÉTODO: Se realizó un estudio transversal en el que se incluyeron todos los artículos retractados e indexados en PubMed del 1 de enero de 2013 al 31 de diciembre de 2016. Las retractaciones también se clasificaron de forma más detallada: problemas con los datos o manejo de datos; aspectos de autoría; plagio; investigación no ética; aspectos relacionados con la revista; problemas con el proceso de revisión; conflicto de intereses o razones desconocidas. Posteriormente se clasificaron como mala conducta, sospecha de mala conducta o sin mala conducta. RESULTADOS: La proporción de retractaciones fue de 2,5 por cada 10.000 publicaciones. Hubo retractaciones en 611 revistas. Durante el periodo de estudio, la retractación por mala conducta fue más frecuente en revistas con bajo factor de impacto, y entre los artículos retractados, hubo más mala conducta (73%) entre las revistas de bajo factor de impacto, en comparación con las revistas con alto factor de impacto (61%) (p = 0,001). También se observan diferencias en el porcentaje de retractaciones debidas a mala conducta según la categoría de clasificación del Journal Citation Report (p <0,001). CONCLUSIONES: La retractación de publicaciones está presente tanto en revistas de alto como de bajo factor de impacto, pero la retractación por mala conducta es más habitual en revistas biomédicas de bajo impacto. Deben tomarse medidas antes y después de la publicación para limitar la mala conducta científica


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Retractación de Publicación como Asunto , Mala Conducta Científica/ética , Revisión por Pares/normas , Plagio , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Estudios Transversales , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Políticas Editoriales
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...