Prepublicaciones: Estudio descriptivo / Preprints: Descriptive study

Los "preprint" o pre-publicaciones (PP) son el manuscrito final y completo de una investigación, disponible en formato abierto y que aún no fue revisada por pares. Esta modalidad acelera el tiempo de presentación de resultados, permite enriquecer la versión final con contribuciones de lectores, pero no son aún investigaciones respaldadas por revisión de pares. Aunque ya conocidos, desde la pandemia COVID-19 los PP han cobrado cada vez más importancia en investigación clínica. Desde 2020, PubMed Central (PMC), y por lo tanto PubMed, incluye PP sobre investigaciones financiadas por los National Institutes of Health (NIH) y que figuren en repositorios seleccionados. Conocer la proporción de PP que alcanzan la publicación luego de la revisión por pares podría dar una idea de la validez de este formato. (AU)

Do good things really come to those who wait?: an analysis of the average time of acceptance in Brazilian surgery journals

Purpose: To analyze the average time between submission and acceptance of national journals in seven Brazilian surgery journals from 2017 to 2022. Methods: It consists of a cross-sectional and observational study with a quantitative approach to analyze the acceptance time of articles approved by Brazilian journals on general surgery and its subspecialties, including Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, Jornal Vascular Brasileiro, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia de Digestiva, Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Journal of Coloproctology, Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, and International Brazilian Journal of Urology. Results: The journals with the lowest average waiting times were Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, and Journal of Coloproctology, respectively, and, with the lowest interquartile range there is Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira. There was no significant difference between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The study designs with the highest and lowest means were, respectively, ideas and innovations - also with the highest interquartile range - and expert opinion, while with the lowest interquartile range was technical skill. Conclusions: The acceptance time for articles in Brazilian surgery journals is extremely variable. Identifying these discrepancies highlights the importance of understanding editorial processes and seeking ways to improve consistency and efficiency in reviewing articles.

Characterization of Comments About bioRxiv and medRxiv Preprints.

Importance: Preprints have been increasingly used in biomedical science, and a key feature of many platforms is public commenting. The content of these comments, however, has not been well studied, and it is unclear whether they resemble those found in journal peer review. Objective: To describe the content of comments on the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint platforms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 were accessed through each platform's application programming interface on March 29, 2021, and a random sample of preprints containing between 1 and 20 comments was evaluated independently by 3 evaluators using an instrument to assess their features and general content. Main Outcome and Measures: The numbers and percentages of comments from authors or nonauthors were assessed, and the comments from nonauthors were assessed for content. These nonauthor comments were assessed to determine whether they included compliments, criticisms, corrections, suggestions, or questions, as well as their topics (eg, relevance, interpretation, and methods). Nonauthor comments were also analyzed to determine whether they included references, provided a summary of the findings, or questioned the preprint's conclusions. Results: Of 52 736 preprints, 3850 (7.3%) received at least 1 comment (mean [SD] follow-up, 7.5 [3.6] months), and the 1921 assessed comments (from 1037 preprints) had a median length of 43 words (range, 1-3172 words). The criticisms, corrections, or suggestions present in 694 of 1125 comments (61.7%) were the most prevalent content, followed by compliments (n = 428 [38.0%]) and questions (n = 393 [35.0%]). Criticisms usually regarded interpretation (n = 286), methodological design (n = 267), and data collection (n = 238), while compliments were mainly about relevance (n = 111) and implications (n = 72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of preprint comments, topics commonly associated with journal peer review were frequent. However, only a small percentage of preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 received comments on these platforms. A clearer taxonomy of peer review roles would help to describe whether postpublication peer review fulfills them.

Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adults with heterogeneous methodology and results. Redundancy in conducting SRs, unclear justification when leading new SRs or updating, and discordant results of SRs on the same research question may generate research waste that makes it difficult for clinicians to keep up to date with the best available evidence. This meta-research aims to assess the redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential reasons for discordance in the results reported by SRs conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A meta-research of early mobilisation SRs in critically ill adult patients will be conducted. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The redundancy of SRs will be assessed by the degree of overlap of primary studies. In addition, the justification for conducting new SRs will be evaluated with the 'Evidence-Based Research' framework. The methodological quality of the SRs will be assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool, and the quality of the reports through compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. To assess the potential reasons for discordance in the results of the SRs considering divergence in results and their interpretation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As meta-research, this study does not involve the participation of people whose rights may be violated. However, this overview will be developed rigorously and systematically to achieve valid and reliable results. The findings of this meta-research study will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal related to rehabilitation, critical care or research methodology. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/kxwq9.

Diseño y validez de contenido del cuestionario continuidad del cuidado entre niveles asistenciales / Design and content validity of the Continuity of Care Across Levels of Care Questionnaire

Introducción: La falta de continuidad del cuidado puede ocasionar omisiones o duplicaciones en las acciones dirigidas al cuidado de usuarios con Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles (ECNT), generando un posible deterioro de su salud. Particularmente, en México y Colombia no existe un instrumento que evalúe la continuidad del cuidado que incluya sus tres elementos esenciales. Objetivos: Diseñar un instrumento que evalúe la continuidad del cuidado entre niveles asistenciales en usuarios con ECNT en México y Colombia; y validar el contenido del cuestionario por medio de un juicio de expertos en versiones adaptadas al contexto mexicano y colombiano. Materiales y Métodos: Se diseñó el cuestionario Continuidad del Cuidado entre Niveles Asistenciales. Se realizó el proceso de validación de contenido por expertos usando el método Delphi. Se seleccionaron 16 jueces expertos (8 por país). Los ítems del cuestionario fueron evaluados bajo cuatro categorías: suficiencia, claridad, coherencia y relevancia. Se realizaron dos rondas de evaluación para determinar el grado de concordancia entre jueces. Resultados: El cuestionario obtuvo un Coeficiente de Validez de Contenido General "Excelente" para ambos países (0,97). La versión final quedó conformada por 85 ítems divididos en tres secciones. Discusión: Este instrumento, a diferencia de otros, evalúa desde la experiencia de los usuarios con ECNT la continuidad del cuidado de forma multidisciplinaria en los tres niveles de atención. Conclusión: El cuestionario alcanzó una validez de contenido esperada usando el método Delphi, para evaluar la continuidad del cuidado entre niveles asistenciales en usuarios con ECNT según el contexto mexicano y colombiano.

Introduction: In the absence of continuity of care, actions aimed at the care of users with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) may be omitted or duplicated, which can potentially worsen users' health. In Mexico and Colombia, in particular, there is no instrument for assessing continuity of care that includes its three essential elements. Objective: To develop an instrument to assess care continuity across levels of care for users with NCDs in Mexico and Colombia and validate the content of the questionnaire through expert judgment of versions adapted to the Mexican and Colombian contexts. Materials and Methods: The Continuity of Care across Levels of Care Questionnaire was designed. The content validation process was carried out by experts using the Delphi technique. Sixteen experts were selected (8 per country). Questionnaire items were assessed in four categories: sufficiency, clarity, coherence, and relevance. Two assessment rounds were conducted to determine the level of experts' agreement. Results: The questionnaire obtained an 'Excellent' overall Content Validity Coefficient in both countries (0.97). Discussion: This instrument, unlike others, assesses the continuity of care in a multidisciplinary manner across the three levels of care from the experience of users with NCDs. Conclusion: The questionnaire achieved the expected content validity using the Delphi technique to assess care continuity across levels of care for users with NCDs, according to the Mexican and Colombian contexts.

Introdução: A falta de continuidade do cuidado pode ocasionar omissões ou duplicidades nas ações voltadas para o atendimento aos usuários com Doenças Crônicas Não Transmissíveis (DCNT), gerando um possível agravamento de sua saúde. Particularmente, no México e na Colômbia não existe um instrumento que avalie a continuidade do cuidado que inclua seus três elementos essenciais. Objetivo: Desenhar um instrumento que avalie a continuidade do cuidado entre os níveis de atenção em usuários com DCNT no México e na Colômbia; e validar o conteúdo do questionário por meio de julgamento de especialistas em versões adaptadas ao contexto mexicano e colombiano. Materiais e Métodos: Foi elaborado o questionário de Continuidade de Cuidados entre os Níveis de Cuidados. O processo de validação de conteúdo foi realizado por especialistas por meio do método Delphi. Foram selecionados 16 juízes especialistas (8 por país). Os itens do questionário foram avaliados em quatro categorias: suficiência, clareza, coerência e relevância. Duas rodadas de avaliação foram realizadas para determinar o grau de concordância entre os juízes. Resultados: O questionário obteve um Coeficiente de Validade de Conteúdo Geral "Excelente" para ambos os países (0,97). A versão final foi composta por 85 itens divididos em três seções. Discussão: Este instrumento, diferente de outros, avalia a partir da experiência dos usuários com DCNT a continuidade do cuidado de forma multidisciplinar nos três níveis de atenção. Conclusão: O questionário atingiu a validade de conteúdo esperada usando o método Delphi, para avaliar a continuidade do cuidado entre níveis de atenção em usuários com DCNT de acordo com o contexto mexicano e colombiano.

[Peer review, preprints and predatory journals. Publication ethics versus publicity applied to medical science]. / Revisión de pares, preprints y revistas depredadoras. ética editorial versus publicidad aplicada a la ciencia médica.

The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.

Predatory Journals in Orthopaedic Surgery.

The prevalence of predatory journals in orthopaedic surgery continues to increase. These journals directly solicit authors, offering the advantages of open access and quick publication rates. Solicitation typically occurs in the form of e-mail communications, and the targets are usually identified as authors who have published other works in conventional publications. These predatory journals process manuscripts without peer review and plagiarism checks and often for a substantial publication fee. As a result, the scientific value of these publications is grossly suspect and has been considered a substantial threat to the quality of scientific discourse and scholarship. This affects not only the layperson reading the works but also investigators tricked into publishing in these venues. It has been estimated that several million US dollars per year are spent on these publications and, in many instances, using monies granted by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. This review aims to study the types of solicitation, evaluate the increasing prevalence in orthopaedic surgery, and offer methods to authors and readers to identify these journals to mitigate their negative effects.

Conocimiento del proceso editorial de las revistas científicas: encuesta a médicos traumatólogos / Knowledge about the editorial process of scientific journals. Cross-sectional study among orthopedic surgeons

Introducción: El objetivo de nuestro estudio fue estimar el nivel de conocimiento de los médicos especialistas en Ortopedia y Traumatología sobre el proceso editorial de las revistas científicas. Materiales y métodos: Estudio descriptivo, transversal sobre el nivel de conocimiento de los médicos traumatólogos respecto del proceso editorial de las revistas científicas, mediante un cuestionario entregado entre junio y agosto de 2022. Se registraron datos sociodemográficos y variables sobre la experiencia en investigación y el conocimiento del proceso editorial. Resultados: Se recibieron 130 encuestas completadas que correspondían a 118 hombres (90,8%) y 12 mujeres (9,2%) (media de la edad 48 años; DE = 12). Poco más de la mitad de la muestra (n = 72; 55%) eran traumatólogos que trabajaban en instituciones del Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires. El 60% de los médicos encuestados poseía un conocimiento bajo o moderado del proceso editorial. Se halló una asociación estadísticamente significativa entre un nivel alto de conocimiento del proceso editorial y la publicación de más de 5 artículos en revistas indexadas (p <0,001), en la revista de nuestra Asociación (p <0,001) y en congresos o jornadas científicos (p = 0,008). Conclusiones: La mayoría de los traumatólogos encuestados tenía un conocimiento bajo o moderado del proceso editorial de manuscritos científicos. Por otra parte, un alto nivel de conocimiento al respecto tuvo una asociación estadísticamente significativa con una mayor experiencia en la publicación de manuscritos científicos en revistas indexadas. Nivel de Evidencia: IV

Introduction: Our aim was to assess the level of knowledge of the editorial process of scientific journals among orthopedic surgeons. Materials and methods: This is a cross-sectional study that evaluates participants' understanding of the editorial process of scientific journals. Between June and August 2022, a questionnaire was distributed to orthopedic surgeons who were members of the Argentine Association of Orthopedics and Traumatology. Demographic data and variables on research experience and knowledge about editorial process were recorded. Results: The survey had 130 respondents, 118 men (90.8%) and 12 women (9.2%), with a mean age of 48 years old (SD = 12). More than half of surveyed surgeons (n = 72; 55%) were from the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area. In our study, 60% of orthopedic surgeons had a low or moderate understanding of the editorial process. A high level of knowledge of the editorial process was associated with having published more than 5 articles in indexed journals (p<0.001), in our association's journal (p<0.001), and in scientific congresses/seminars (p= 0.008). Conclusions: The majority of the orthopedic surgeons surveyed in our cross-sectional study had a low or moderate level of knowledge about the scientific manuscript editing process. On the other hand, having a high level of knowledge in this area was associated with more experience in the publication of scientific manuscripts in indexed journals. Level of Evidence: IV

Health education actions on male breast cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although rare, the rates of diagnosis of male breast cancer (MBC) have been increasing over the years, and it can be quite aggressive in the male organism. Some strategies such as health education disseminating knowledge about MBC can be essential for early discovery and finding better prognosis. OBJECTIVE: Protocol to map the available evidence of health education approaches on MBC. METHODS: A scoping review on health education on MBC will be carried out in Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, Online System of Literature Search and Analysis Medical (MEDLINE), Embase, Virtual Health Library (VHL). Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment through the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Checklist. For the quality of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Analysis will be used. RESULTS: The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will provide evidence of how health education on MBC is being addressed in health systems. Evidence can help healthcare professionals and patients recognize the most effective educational inventions in disseminating knowledge and preventing MBC.

Subjective assessments of research domain criteria constructs in addiction and compulsive disorders: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRDs) and disorders due to addictive behaviours (DABs) are prevalent conditions that share behavioural and neurobiological characteristics. The Research Domain Criteria lists a series of constructs whose dysfunctions may be present in both groups of disorders. The present study will describe the research protocol of a scoping review of the literature on self-report scales and questionnaires that tap dysfunctional constructs that underlie OCRDs and DABs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines a scoping review on self-report tools and questionnaires that assess OCRDs and DABs-related constructs. The scoping review will select sources in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be designed according to the Population, Concept, Context, Types of source framework. Two reviewers will screen independently titles, abstracts and full texts to determine the eligibility of articles. A methodological framework including six stages steps ((1) identifying a research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising and reporting the result) will be used, and the findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Information extracted will be collated, and quantitative results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for conducting this scoping review is not required, as this study will involve secondary analysis of existing literature. The researchers will disseminate the study results via conference presentations and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/UJ7G5.

Brazilian female researchers do not publish less despite an academic structure that deepens sex gap.

In the 21st century, we still need to talk about gender inequality in science. Even with the sharp growth of studies on this theme over the last decades, we are still trying to convince our peers that diversity matters and, if embraced, makes better science. Part of this drawback can be related to the need for data to support effective proposals to change the academic scenario. In order to close some of those gaps, we here analyze 1) the profile of Brazilian researchers based on production, impact, and membership to the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 2) participation in the Editorial boards of Brazilian journals dedicated to Entomology, and, 3) the academic scenario of Brazilian Entomology focusing on the sex of the first and last authors in peer-reviewed international publications related to Entomology. We aimed to provide a deeper look on the Brazilian Entomology scenario and to expand the amount of data availability to stimulate and foster a mind-change in the current academic structure. We performed scientometric searches and analysis using different platforms and found that the number and impact of the publications by female researchers, as observed by relative numbers, are not less than that of males. Despite that, female researchers are less represented at the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and editorial boards, reinforcing the lack of women recognition in science. Thus, we observe that some narratives related to the productivity gap can be misleading to a perpetuation of our internal and structural biases. We here expanded data from a previous paper where we scrutinized the Brazilian Entomology scenario and discussed the patches and systems that maintain gender gap in science.

In silico approaches for drug repurposing in oncology: Protocol for a scoping review of existing evidence.

Drug repurposing has been applied in the biomedical field to optimize the use of existing drugs, leading to a more efficient allocation of research resources. In oncology, this approach is particularly interesting, considering the high cost related to the discovery of new drugs with therapeutic potential. Computational methods have been applied to predict associations between drugs and their targets. However, drug repurposing has not always been promising and its efficiency has yet to be proven. Therefore, the present scoping review protocol was developed to screen the literature on how in silico strategies can be implemented in drug repurposing in oncology. The scoping review will be conducted according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework (2005) and the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. We will search the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, as well as the grey literature. We will include peer-reviewed research articles involving in silico strategies applied to drug repurposing in oncology, published between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2021. Data will be charted and findings described according to review questions. We will report the scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR).