Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 53.781
Filtrar
2.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0241826, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33152034

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Escrita Médica , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pneumonia Viral , Publicações/normas
5.
Biomedica ; 40(Supl. 2): 104-115, 2020 10 30.
Artigo em Inglês, Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33152194

RESUMO

Introduction: The propagation of COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has become a pandemic which, along with its rapid dissemination worldwide, has brought about an exponential increase in the amount of research related to the subject to which Latin American researchers have contributed actively. Objective: To conduct a descriptive bibliometric study of the main trends in research on COVID-19 produced in Latin America. Materials and methods: We searched in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Pubmed databases to retrieve the Latin American scientific production on COVID-19. Bibliometric indicators of production, visibility, impact, and collaboration were analyzed to assess the regional participation in studies on the subject. Results: The analysis of 142 documents evidenced an exponential growth of scientific production in the period analyzed, an important level of international collaboration (51.4%) in scientific production, and the leadership of regional institutions (71%) in the research with publications in high-visibility jounals especially in Colombia, Brazil, and México. Conclusions: The results regarding the regional participation in the research on COVID-19 were relevant not only in relation to its quantity and exponential growth during the period analyzed but also in terms of its quality and excellence with a high rate of international collaboration and publications in important scientific journals, which besides their visibility, represent a considerable contribution to the research compared to the other geographical contexts.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Academias e Institutos/estatística & dados numéricos , Autoria , Betacoronavirus , Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Eficiência , Humanos , Internacionalidade , América Latina , Liderança , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
7.
An Acad Bras Cienc ; 92(suppl 2): e20181263, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33084755

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Biodiversidade , Brasil , Ecossistema , Idioma , Editoração
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(44): e22885, 2020 Oct 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33126338

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Medical Subject Headings , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , Publicações , Previsões , Humanos , Redes Sociais Online , PubMed , Publicações/classificação , Publicações/normas , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos
9.
Rheumatol Int ; 40(12): 2023-2030, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33048199

RESUMO

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pneumonia Viral , Comunicação Acadêmica/normas , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/normas , Reumatologia , Inquéritos e Questionários
15.
J Neurointerv Surg ; 12(11): 1049-1052, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32998982

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians aim to provide clinical and surgical care to their patients while actively contributing to a growing body of scientific literature. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in procedural-based specialties across the United States witnessing a sharp decline in their clinical volume and surgical cases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic productivity. METHODS: The study compared the neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic output during the pandemic lockdown with the same time period in previous years. Editors from a sample of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional journals provided the total number of original manuscript submissions, broken down by months, from the year 2016 to 2020. Manuscript submission was used as a surrogate metric for academic productivity. RESULTS: 8 journals were represented. The aggregated data from all eight journals as a whole showed that a combined average increase of 42.3% was observed on original submissions for 2020. As the average yearly percent increase using the 2016-2019 data for each journal exhibited a combined average increase of 11.2%, the rise in the yearly increase for 2020 in comparison was nearly fourfold. For the same journals in the same time period, the average percent of COVID-19 related publications from January to June of 2020 was 6.87%. CONCLUSION: There was a momentous increase in the number of original submissions for the year 2020, and its effects were uniformly experienced across all of our represented journals.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Eficiência , Neurologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neurocirurgia/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Pesquisa/estatística & dados numéricos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/fisiopatologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/cirurgia , Universidades/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Neurocirurgia/tendências , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Editoração , Quarentena/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa/tendências , Universidades/tendências
17.
Isr J Health Policy Res ; 9(1): 50, 2020 10 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33023673

RESUMO

Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) constitute a worldwide public health crisis. In light of the AD/ADRD epidemic now existing within the global COVID-19 pandemic, the need for global action to improve dementia care is greater than ever. The article collection "Dementia- an Interdisciplinary Approach," in the Israeli Journal of Health Policy and Research (IJHPR) highlights the need for interprofessional approaches to improving outcomes for people living with dementia and their care partners, as well as the complexities of conducting dementia care research.


Assuntos
Demência/terapia , Política de Saúde , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Demência/epidemiologia , Humanos , Israel/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA