Vet the journal before you submit: turnaround times of journals publishing in zoological medicine and related fields.

Many factors influence selection of a target journal for publishing scientific papers, including "fit" within the journal's scope, acceptance rate, readership, open access options, submission and publication costs, journal quality, and timeliness of publication. Timeliness of publication can be a critical factor affecting career development, but many journals are not transparent about turnaround times. Here we evaluated 49 journals publishing papers in zoological medicine and related fields between 2017 and 2022, and aggregated and examined distributions of turnaround time of journals that publicly provided the requisite data, in order to aid authors in selecting target journals that best meet their needs. Of 49 journals evaluated, 39 provided necessary dates for reconstructing turnaround times. Of these, median times to acceptance ranged from 37 to 338 days, and median times to publication ranged from 41 to 403.5 days. The percentage of papers published in greater than 1 year ("slow") ranged from 0 to 57.1%, while the percentage of papers published in under 6 months ("timely") ranged from 0.8 to 99.8%. Acceptance rates and times to first decision were available for only 22% and 20%, respectively, of journals evaluated. Results may prove useful for authors deciding where to submit their works, depending on how they prioritize the many factors involved.

Impacts of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scoring Change on Emergency Medicine Applicant Screening.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 has been used as a screening tool for residency selection. In February 2020, Step 1 numerical scoring changed to pass/fail. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to survey emergency medicine (EM) residency program attitudes towards the new Step 1 scoring change and to identify important applicant screening factors. METHODS: A 16-question survey was distributed through the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine listserv from November 11 through December 31, 2020. Given the Step 1 scoring change, the survey questioned the importance of EM rotation grades, composite standardized letters of evaluation (cSLOEs), and individual standardized letters of evaluation, using a Likert scale. Descriptive statistics of demographic characteristics and selection factors were performed along with a regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 107 respondents, 48% were program directors, 28% were assistant or associate program directors, 14% were clerkship directors, and 10% were in other roles. Sixty (55.6%) disagreed with pass/fail Step 1 scoring change and, of those, 82% believed that numerical scoring was a good screening tool. The cSLOEs, EM rotation grades, and interview were the most important selection factors. Residencies with 50 or more residents had 5.25 odds (95% CI 1.25-22.1; p = 0.0018) of agreeing with pass/fail scoring and those who ranked cSLOEs as the most important selection factor had 4.90 odds (95% CI 1.125-21.37; p = 0.0343) of agreeing with pass/fail scoring. CONCLUSIONS: Most EM programs disagree with pass/fail scoring of Step 1 and will most likely use Step 2 score as a screening tool. The cSLOEs, EM rotation grades, and interview are considered the most important selection factors.

Factors Important in the Selection of a Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery Fellow: A National Survey of Fellowship Directors.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship programs and applicants have been increasing in recent years. However, little information is currently available with regards to the most important aspects of the application process. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the factors that Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship directors consider most important when selecting a fellow. METHODS: An anonymous, online survey was distributed to current Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship directors. 28 of 31 fellowship directors (90%) completed the survey. Respondents were asked to provide basic information regarding the program and to rank various selection factors they deem most important. RESULTS: For assessing the quality of an application, fellowship directors placed the highest value on LORs. Research experience and publications were also important considerations. The traditional strength of an applicant's residency program was a factor, while medical school performance, USMLE scores, and OTE score did not play a significant role in the selection process. For subjective assessment of applicants, the most value was placed on faculty assessment of the applicant during their interview. Attention was also given to personality fit with the program and the perceived maturity and initiative of the applicant. CONCLUSION: Numerous academic achievements and personal characteristics are given consideration in the Rhinology/Skull Base Surgery fellowship selection process, but recommendation from a trusted colleague and performance on interviews were viewed to be the most critical factors for fellowship programs in selecting applicants. This is consistent with studies that have explored the selection process for other otolaryngology fellowship programs.

Customer Restaurant Choice: An Empirical Analysis of Restaurant Types and Eating-out Occasions.

This study investigated restaurant customers' perceived importance of key factors in accordance with dining occasions and restaurant segments. Our investigation into restaurant selection and situational factors present two types of empirical evidence regarding customers' choice of restaurant. First, menu price was customers' top priority in restaurant selections for full-service, quick-casual, and quick-service restaurants. Second, restaurant customers rated the importance level of restaurant selection criteria differently according to eating-out occasions. The importance of menu price was greatest for both quick meal/convenience and social occasion, brand reputation was the most important factor for business necessity, and word-of-mouth recommendation was greatest for celebration.

Psychosocial Mediators of Change and Patient Selection Factors in Oral Immunotherapy Trials.

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is influenced by physiological, psychological, and environmental variables and can be best understood by considering the interactions of factors that cut across multiple levels. One of the most important issues relating to treatment in food allergy is to identify, describe, and define predictors that may contribute to modify HRQL outcomes. The research presented demonstrates that measures of HRQL are able to distinguish key features of known groups (e.g. relating to reaction severity, treatment, allergen type/number, expectation of outcome) and delineate impact on hitherto unknown groups (e.g. relating to personality types and coping styles). This heterogeneity may explain why HRQL or other patient-related outcomes may differ in individuals during, or following any treatment or intervention. Patient-reported outcomes are relatively poorly defined to date. Since HRQL has only been studied in relatively few oral immunotherapy trials to date, primarily looking at caregiver HRQL, it is unclear which factors, measures, or subscales are most predictive of short- and/or long-term treatment outcomes for which type of patient, and which time points for measurement are most informative. A standardised protocol that incorporates HRQL and other relevant patient-related outcome measures and agreed definitions of outcomes would allow for the comparison of efficacy of food allergy treatments between centres, trials, or countries. Further evidence-based research aimed at exploring the effects of interventions on outcomes in food allergy is needed, including the influence of patient and parent factors on protocol design. To this end, it is vital that patient-related outcomes such as improved HRQL are seen as a primary outcome and are measured at multiple intervals during the trial duration and beyond. The creative use of methods and designs (both qualitative and quantitative) to better understand the role of HRQL in immunotherapy treatment trials will enable improved modelling of the costs, risks, and benefits of any treatment. Systematic analysis and modelling of antecedent factors, mediators, and outcomes will be important to boost intervention effects and to maximise the overall benefits of treatment.

Identification of Inequalities in the Selection of Liver Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases in Sweden.

BACKGROUND:: Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases offers a 5-year survival rate of 25%-58%. This study aimed to analyze whether patients with colorectal liver metastases undergo resection to an equal extent and whether selection factors play a role in the selection process. MATERIAL AND METHODS:: Data were retrieved from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (2007-2011) for colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases. The patients identified were linked to the Swedish Registry of Liver and Bile surgery and the National Patient Registry to identify whether liver surgery or ablative treatment was performed. Analyses for age, sex, type of primary tumor and treating hospital (university, county, or district), American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and radiology for detection of metastatic disease were performed. RESULTS:: Of 28,355 patients with colorectal cancer, 21.6% (6127/28,355) presented with liver metastases. Of the patients with liver metastases, 18.5% (1134/6127) underwent liver resection or ablation. The cumulative proportion of liver resection/ablation was 4% (1134/28,355) of all colorectal cancer. If "not bowel resected" were excluded, the proportion slightly increased to 4.7% (1134/24,262). Around 15% of the patients with metastases were registered as referrals for liver surgery. In a multivariable analysis patients treated at a university hospital for primary tumor were more frequently surgically treated for liver metastases (p < 0.0001). Patients with liver metastases from rectal cancer (p < 0.0001) and men more often underwent liver resection (p = 0.006). A difference was found between health-care regions for the frequency of liver surgery (p < 0.0001). Patients >70 years and those with American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2 underwent liver resection less frequently. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver was more often used in diagnostic work-up in men. CONCLUSION:: Patients with colorectal liver metastases are unequally treated in Sweden, as indicated by the low referral rate. The proximity to a hepatobiliary unit seems important to enhance the patient's chances of being offered liver surgery.

Risk of progression from subjective cognitive decline to mild cognitive impairment: The role of study setting.

INTRODUCTION: We compared risk of progression from subjective cognitive decline (SCD) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in an academic memory clinic versus a population-based study. METHODS: Older adults presenting at a memory clinic were classified as SCD (n = 113) or as noncomplainers (n = 82). Participants from a population study were classified as SCD (n = 592) and noncomplainers (n = 589) based on a memory complaint score. Annual follow-up performed for a mean of 3 years. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio for SCD was 15.97 (95% confidence interval: 6.08-42.02, P < .001) in the memory clinic versus 1.18 (95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.40, P = .047) in the population study, where reported "worry" about memory further increased SCD-associated risk for MCI. DISCUSSION: SCD is more likely to progress to MCI in a memory clinic than the general population; participants' characteristics vary across settings. Study setting should be considered when evaluating SCD as a risk state for MCI and dementia.