For Free or for Fee? Dilemma of Small Scientific Journals

Biomedical publishing is becoming increasingly dominated by multinational companies, advertising research articles at the international market, presenting them electronically through web-based services, and distributing them to readers-consumers. It seems that they will soon become the sole publishers for the majority of biomedical journals. In the past decade, however, we witnessed a quiet revolution in the whole structure of scientific communication, influenced by new technologies and initiatives such as Open Access, PubMedCentral, PLoS, and BioMedCentral. The Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) has recently been approached by two major publishing companies and offered to become one of the journals in their group. The editorial decision was to join neither of the publishers. We felt that the decision had to be explained to our readers by defining CMJ's position in global scientific and medical journal publishing. Our experience may be similar to that of the many biomedical journals which find themselves in a dilemma whether to join major publishers or not.     

What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?

Background

We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal.

Methods

We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies.

Results

We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors.

Conclusions

Although many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals.

     

Continuously variable rating: a new, simple and logical procedure to evaluate original scientific publications

OBJECTIVE:

Impact Factors (IF) are widely used surrogates to evaluate single articles, in spite of known shortcomings imposed by cite distribution skewness. We quantify this asymmetry and propose a simple computer-based procedure for evaluating individual articles.

METHOD:

(a) Analysis of symmetry. Journals clustered around nine Impact Factor points were selected from the medical “Subject Categories” in Journal Citation Reports 2010. Citable items published in 2008 were retrieved and ranked by granted citations over the Jan/2008 - Jun/2011 period. Frequency distribution of cites, normalized cumulative cites and absolute cites/decile were determined for each journal cluster. (b) Positive Predictive Value. Three arbitrarily established evaluation classes were generated: LOW (1.3≤IF<2.6); MID: (2.6≤IF<3.9); HIGH: (IF≥3.9). Positive Predictive Value for journal clusters within each class range was estimated. (c) Continuously Variable Rating. An alternative evaluation procedure is proposed to allow the rating of individually published articles in comparison to all articles published in the same journal within the same year of publication. The general guiding lines for the construction of a totally dedicated software program are delineated.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Skewness followed the Pareto Distribution for (1相似文献   

Evaluation of the informatician perspective: determining types of research papers preferred by clinicians

Background

To deliver evidence-based medicine, clinicians often reference resources that are useful to their respective medical practices. Owing to their busy schedules, however, clinicians typically find it challenging to locate these relevant resources out of the rapidly growing number of journals and articles currently being published. The literature-recommender system may provide a possible solution to this issue if the individual needs of clinicians can be identified and applied.

Methods

We thus collected from the CiteULike website a sample of 96 clinicians and 6,221 scientific articles that they read. We examined the journal distributions, publication types, reading times, and geographic locations. We then compared the distributions of MeSH terms associated with these articles with those of randomly sampled MEDLINE articles using two-sample Z-test and multiple comparison correction, in order to identify the important topics relevant to clinicians.

Results

We determined that the sampled clinicians followed the latest literature in a timely manner and read papers that are considered landmarks in medical research history. They preferred to read scientific discoveries from human experiments instead of molecular-, cellular- or animal-model-based experiments. Furthermore, the country of publication may impact reading preferences, particularly for clinicians from Egypt, India, Norway, Senegal, and South Africa.

Conclusion

These findings provide useful guidance for developing personalized literature-recommender systems for clinicians.

     

Instructions to authors for case reporting are limited: A review of a core journal list

Background

Case reports are frequently published in the health care literature, however advice on preparing such reports using the "instructions to authors" pages of journals is alleged to be limited. However, to our knowledge, this has not been formally evaluated. As roles of case reports may vary according to the case and the clinical specialities, one might expect the advice to authors to vary according to journal clinical grouping.

Methods

We surveyed the current advice available to authors of case reports from 'instructions to authors' pages of a core collection of 249 journals ('Hague' list). These were examined and compared for advice or recommendation on writing case reports. Of these, 163 (65%) published case reports and provided instructions on this publication type. Data were extracted on items of style and content of case reports, using a piloted data extraction form.

Results

Journals that published case reports were grouped into medical (n = 81, 50%), surgical (n = 38, 23%) and generic or multidisciplinary (n = 44, 27%) categories. There was a difference among the medical, surgical and generic or multidisciplinary journals in the maximum number of words and pages allowed but no difference in the number of figures, tables, references, authors, abstract or synopsis, indexing or key words and consent. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference among the three different categories of journals regarding the content of the case reports.

Conclusions

Of the journals reviewed, we found that 'instructions to authors' pages provided limited and varied information for preparing a case report. There is a need for consensus, and more consistent guidance for authors of case report.     

Memores Acti Prudentes Future!

How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Govil D. Memores Acti Prudentes Future! Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):1.

The first scientific journal (not exclusively medical) to be published was the French journal, Le Journal des Sçavans, which appeared in January 1665. Though the Royal Society of London, an academy of sciences, became the first body dedicated to describing scientific experiments, began working in 1660, its scientific publication, the first English journal, Philosophical Transactions, was started as its regular publication in April 1665. Acta Medica et Philosophica Hafniensia was probably the first dedicated medical journal, which first appeared in 1673. This was edited by Thomas Bartholin, a professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen.¹ Currently, about 30,000 medical journals are published each year.²The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine came into existence on October 9, 1993, with a small gathering of 13 people in Mumbai, with the aim of, among others to publish scientific papers, journals, monographs for upgrading knowledge and skill about Critical Care Medicine among members and nonmembers. In furtherance of this goal, the Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine was started in 1996.³ From being published sporadically in the beginning, it has now grown into a high-quality specialty open access journal with monthly publication, with theme based supplements. Apart from this, the journal publishes guidelines and position statements of the society in special supplements. It became indexed with PubMed in 2010. IJCCM gets over 1,500 submissions annually from all over the globe. With the aim of being environment friendly, the journal is now entirely published electronically for the past 4 years, except for the print copies that are being sent to the interested members, teaching institutes, and corporate members. In 2021, the journal completed 25 years of scientific publication in areas of critical care, emergency medicine, and acute care.During the period of growth, the journal faced many trials and tribulations, common to such endeavors.⁴ The Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine was lucky and correct in its timing of starting publication that it did not face the main problem, faced by any new journals—finding readership. There was, has been, and always will be a great number of avid readers wanting to know what is happening in the exciting field of critical care medicine in India and neighboring countries.The Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine will continue to showcase the research of Indian intensivists, alongside others, and go from strength to strength due to our predominantly young cadre of over 13,000 members of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. We look forward to a bright future as we “Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow.”Memores acti prudentes future!—Mindful of what has been done, aware of what will be!     

Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of a Brazilian Healthcare Institution: A Case Study at the Heart Institute of São Paulo,Brazil

INTRODUCTION:

The present study was motivated by the need to systematically assess the research productivity of the Heart Institute (InCor), Medical School of the University of São Paulo, Brazil.

OBJECTIVE:

To explore methodology for the assessment of institutional scientific research productivity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Bibliometric indicators based on searches for author affiliation of original scientific articles or reviews published in journals indexed in the databases Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and SciELO from January 2000 to December 2003 were used in this study. The retrieved records were analyzed according to the index parameters of the journals and modes of access. The number of citations was used to calculate the institutional impact factor.

RESULTS:

Out of 1253 records retrieved from the five databases, 604 original articles and reviews were analyzed; of these, 246 (41%) articles were published in national journals and 221 (90%) of those were in journals with free online access through SciELO or their own websites. Of the 358 articles published in international journals, 333 (93%) had controlled online access and 223 (67%) were available through the Capes Portal of Journals. The average impact of each article for InCor was 2.224 in the period studied.

CONCLUSION:

A simple and practical methodology to evaluate the scientific production of health research institutions includes searches in the LILACS database for national journals and in MEDLINE and the Web of Science for international journals. The institutional impact factor of articles indexed in the Web of Science may serve as a measure by which to assess and review the scientific productivity of a research institution.     

Graduate medical education scholarly activities initiatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents “should participate in scholarly activity.” The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership.

Methods

A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative.

Results

We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p?<?0.001).

Conclusions

Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

     

Assessing clinical and life sciences performance of research institutions in Split, Croatia, 2000-2006

Aim

To evaluate publications of clinical and life scientists from research institutions in Split, Croatia, and the publication output from government-funded research projects of the University of Split School of Medicine.

Methods

We analyzed the number of publications from research institutions in Split, Croatia, in the 2000-2006 period, relative impact factors, predominant research fields, output of researchers from the University of Split School of Medicine receiving government research grants, and the average price of published article.

Results

From 2000 to 2006, clinical and life scientists published 350 articles indexed in Thomson Scientific database Current Contents. The number of articles increased from 30 in 2000 to 76 in 2006, and the average impact factor of journals where these articles were published increased from 2.03 in 2000 to 2.89 in 2006. Twenty percent of articles (72/350) were published in the Croatian Medical Journal. Principal investigators of the 12 research projects receiving government grants published 0 to 8 articles related to the project topic in the 2002-2006 research grant cycle. The research grantees published 78 original research articles, with an average price per article of € 29.210.

Conclusion

Although the number and impact factor of research articles published by clinical and life scientists from Split, Croatia, is increasing, it is still low when the number of scientists is taken into account. There should be better mechanisms of control and evaluation of research performance of government-funded research projects.Science in Croatia is funded mostly by the government, ie, the Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (MSES). In 2003, the government budget for science in Croatia was HRK 684 million (€ 93 million), increasing to HRK 813 million (€ 110 million) in 2006 (1). The gross domestic product (GDP) of Croatia in 2003 was HRK 198 422 million (€ 27 934 million), increasing to HRK 250 590 million (€ 34 015 million) in 2006 (2). Thus, the budget for science was 0.34% of GDP in 2003 and 0.32% in 2006. However, the Croatian government claims that science, technology, and education are the key factors in the process of integration to the European Union and transition from an industrial to knowledge economy (3,4).After a large part of public funds have been invested into science, it is reasonable to ask if the current amount of funding in Croatia has a measurable impact on the number and quality of research articles. Current evaluation practices of research performance of government-funded research grants in Croatia are almost non-existing. Croatian scientists whose research is funded by the government should be able to provide a sustained track record of significant output in peer-reviewed literature and show a strong commitment to increased quality research output.Data on the cost of research in Croatia are scarce. Some attention has recently been devoted to the number of the Thomson Scientific Science Citation Index (SCI) articles produced by Croatian scientists (5-7), but there are no publications assessing the results of government-funded research projects or calculating the costs of publication in Croatia.The aim of this study was to assess research productivity of clinical and life scientists from research institutions in Split, Croatia, as a representative example of a small academic community in Croatia. The second aim was to compare the research output with financial input. The third aim was to discuss current evaluation practices of scientific productivity in Croatia and most appropriate scientometric indicators for assessing research performance of Croatian clinical and life scientists.     

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or ''predatory'', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to ''clean'' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.     

Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact

Background

Citations in peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor are generally accepted measures of scientific impact. Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence. However, the relationship of the these new metrics to traditional metrics such as citations is not known.

Objective

(1) To explore the feasibility of measuring social impact of and public attention to scholarly articles by analyzing buzz in social media, (2) to explore the dynamics, content, and timing of tweets relative to the publication of a scholarly article, and (3) to explore whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles.

Methods

Between July 2008 and November 2011, all tweets containing links to articles in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) were mined. For a subset of 1573 tweets about 55 articles published between issues 3/2009 and 2/2010, different metrics of social media impact were calculated and compared against subsequent citation data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17 to 29 months later. A heuristic to predict the top-cited articles in each issue through tweet metrics was validated.

Results

A total of 4208 tweets cited 286 distinct JMIR articles. The distribution of tweets over the first 30 days after article publication followed a power law (Zipf, Bradford, or Pareto distribution), with most tweets sent on the day when an article was published (1458/3318, 43.94% of all tweets in a 60-day period) or on the following day (528/3318, 15.9%), followed by a rapid decay. The Pearson correlations between tweetations and citations were moderate and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from .42 to .72 for the log-transformed Google Scholar citations, but were less clear for Scopus citations and rank correlations. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P < .001) could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4–33.6). Top-cited articles can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity.

Conclusions

Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time.     

Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions

Background

Guidelines published in major medical journals are very influential in determining clinical practice. It would be essential to evaluate whether conflicts of interests are disclosed in these publications. We evaluated the reporting of conflicts of interest and the factors that may affect such disclosure in a sample of 191 guidelines on therapeutic and/or preventive measures published in 6 major clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics) in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994 and 1999.

Results

Only 7 guidelines (3.7%) mentioned conflicts of interest and all were published in 1999 (17.5% (7/40) of guidelines published in 1999 alone). Reporting of conflicts of interest differed significantly by journal (p=0.026), availability of disclosure policy by the journal (p=0.043), source of funding (p < 0.001) and number of authors (p=0.004). In the entire database of 191 guidelines, a mere 18 authors disclosed a total of 24 potential conflicts of interest and most pertained to minor issues.

Conclusions

Despite some recent improvement, reporting of conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines published in influential journals is largely neglected.