How international are leading general paediatric journals?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tutarel O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1720537 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How international are leading general paediatric journals?
Archives of disease in childhood 20050801 8
The composition of the editorial boards of leading general paediatric journals was assessed. The board members' country of current affiliation was classified according to the Human Development Index. The results showed that only a very small number of the board members are based in the developing world. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite women constituting over half of new doctors, gender disparity remains an issue. Surgery has shown particularly slow progress towards gender parity. This study aimed to quantify gender representation within editorial boards of the highest ranking international general surgery journals. Surgical journals were collated using two indices: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Non-general surgery journals were excluded. Journals were contacted, requesting gender editorial team demographics. Editorial board data were collected via journal websites on 28 November 2019. The top 25 general surgery journals according to SJR and JIF ranking methods were determined, identifying 28 unique journals. Editorial board data were publicly available for 27 of these 28 surgical journals, and were examined. Women accounted for 20.2 per cent (568 of 2816) of total editorial board positions. Women constituted 11 per cent (4 of 36) of editor-in-chief positions, 32 per cent (29 of 92) of deputy editors, and 19.1 per cent (369 of 1935) of general editorial board positions. The findings demonstrate gender disparity within editorial boards of the most prominent general surgery journals.
| S-EPMC8036998 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10540386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe global distribution of health professionals and associated training programmes is wide but prior study has demonstrated reported scholarship of teaching and learning arises from predominantly Western perspectives.DesignWe conducted a document analysis to examine authorship of recent publications to explore current international representation.Data sourcesThe table of contents of seven high-impact English-language health professional education journals between 2008 and 2018 was extracted from Embase.Eligibility criteriaThe journals were selected according to highest aggregate ranking across specific scientific impact indices and stating health professional education in scope; only original research and review articles from these publications were included for analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThe table of contents was extracted and eligible publications screened by independent reviewers who further characterised the geographic affiliations of the publishing research teams and study settings (if applicable).ResultsA total 12 018 titles were screened and 7793 (64.8%) articles included. Most were collaborations (7048, 90.4%) conducted by authors from single geographic regions (5851, 86%). Single-region teams were most often formed from countries in North America (56%), Northern Europe (14%) or Western Europe (10%). Overall lead authorship from Asian, African or South American regions was less than 15%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Geographic representation varied somewhat by journal, but not across time.ConclusionsDiversity in health professional education scholarship, as marked by nation of authors' professional affiliations, remains low. Under-representation of published research outside Global North regions limits dissemination of novel ideas resulting in unidirectional flow of experiences and a concentrated worldview of teaching and learning.
| S-EPMC7684802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals.Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results.Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found.Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.
| S-EPMC4440809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Research output of once-leading countries in surgical journals is decreasing despite an overall increase of scientific publications by 8% per year. We aimed to assess research outputs of German, Dutch, and Israeli pediatric surgeons in dedicated pediatric surgical journals in order to get insight into trends in pediatric surgical research.Methods: We collected bibliographic information on all original articles in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, and Pediatric Surgery International in 1985–1988, 2000–2003, and 2015–2018 that had a German, Dutch or Israeli last author from a department of pediatric surgery. Citation counts were obtained from the Web of Science.Results: Research output of German pediatric surgery decreased from 19 manuscripts in 1988 (0.1/surgeon/year) to eight manuscripts in 2017 (0.02/surgeon/year), whereas those of the Netherlands increased from two manuscripts in 1985 (0.08/surgeon/year) to 12 manuscripts in 2016 (0.3/surgeon/year). The declining German research output negatively correlated with increasing numbers of specialist pediatric surgeons for total (? = ?0.54; P = 0.0156) and manuscripts per surgeon (? = ?0.79; P = 0.0001), resulting in a negative trend over time (?2 = 11.845, P = 0.0006). Analyses of citation patterns revealed that manuscripts by Dutch pediatric surgeons and those published in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery had higher absolute citation counts than the reference category of a German manuscript in the European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Age-corrected citation rates resembled this result by increasing from 2000 to 2003 (x˜ = 0.799, range: 0–3.368) to 2015–2018 (x˜ = 2, range: 0–5) (P = 0.035) for the Netherlands. Assessment of manuscript types revealed that the proportion of prospective studies increased in the German sample (?2 = 5.05, P = 0.0246), but remained the lowest among the comparators. Surprisingly, the proportion of non-clinical manuscripts from Germany also increased over time (?2 = 4.001, P = 0.0455), whereas it remained constant in both the Netherlands and Israel.Conclusion: German pediatric surgical research output decreased in the last thirty years based on the sample of dedicated pediatric surgical journals, while Dutch productivity increased. Citation rates—as a measure of scientific impact—were associated and increased with Dutch manuscripts. The involved factors remain to be determined and whether this represents a shift toward other journals or mirrors a general development.
| S-EPMC7188787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere is an urgent need for reliable and universally applicable outcome measures for children with mitochondrial diseases. In this study, we aimed to adapt the currently available Newcastle Paediatric Mitochondrial Disease Scale (NPMDS) to the International Paediatric Mitochondrial Disease Scale (IPMDS) during a Delphi-based process with input from international collaborators, patients and caretakers, as well as a pilot reliability study in eight patients. Subsequently, we aimed to test the feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the IPMDS in a multicentre study.MethodsA clinically, biochemically and genetically heterogeneous group of 17 patients (age 1.6-16 years) from five different expert centres from four different continents were evaluated in this study.ResultsThe feasibility of the IPMDS was good, as indicated by a low number of missing items (4 %) and the positive evaluation of patients, parents and users. Principal component analysis of our small sample identified three factors, which explained 57.9 % of the variance. Good construct validity was found using hypothesis testing. The overall interrater reliability was good [median intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement between raters (ICCagreement) 0.85; range 0.23-0.99).ConclusionIn conclusion, we suggest using the IPMDS for assessing natural history in children with mitochondrial diseases. These data should be used to further explore construct validity of the IPMDS and to set age limits. In parallel, responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference should be studied to facilitate sample size calculations in future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4987390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWomen remain underrepresented among editors of scientific journals, particularly in senior positions. However, to what extent this applies to medical journals of different specialties remains unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate the gender distribution of the editors in chief at leading medical journals.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of the editors in chief at the top 10 international medical journals of 41 categories related to the medical specialties of the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports in 2019.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of women as editors in chief.ResultsThis study found that, overall, women represented 21% (94 of 44) of the editors in chief, with wide variation across medical specialties from 0% to 82%. There were 5 categories for which none of the editors in chief were women (dentistry, oral surgery and medicine; allergy; psychiatry; anesthesiology; and ophthalmology) and only 3 categories for which women outnumbered men as editors in chief (primary health care, microbiology, and genetics and heredity). In 27 of the 41 categories, women represented less than a third of the editors in chief (eg, 1 of 10 for critical care medicine, 2 of 10 for gastroenterology and hepatology, and 3 of 10 for endocrinology and metabolism).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that women are underrepresented among editors in chief of leading medical journals. For the benefit of medical research, a joint effort from editorial boards, publishers, authors, and academic institutions is required to address this gender gap.
| S-EPMC8427369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.
| S-EPMC4240555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAcademical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.MethodsWe identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.ResultsThirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.ConclusionsMost leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.
| S-EPMC6596940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: The number of scientific papers is a conventional metric to measure a country's research performance in a particular area. The aim of this survey was to demonstrate statistical information about orthodontic research published in international and national journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed as an international and IranMedex and SID as national databases were searched between1997 and 2012. The keyword searching method was used in English and Persian. Abstracts were reviewed and unrelated articles were omitted. Data were obtained and transferred to Microsoft Excel to survey the scintometric indicators. RESULTS: According to the defined criteria, a total of 733 papers were found showing a considerable increase. Five hundred papers (68.2%) were published in domestic journals, and 233 (31.8%) were published in PubMed indexed journals. Most of the orthodontic articles originated from Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (22.9%). The Journal of Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences published most of the national papers (27.8%) and the Australian Orthodontic Journal published the majority of international papers (9.9%) In terms of study design, 52.5% of the articles were observational and 39.4% were interventional. CONCLUSION: Orthodontic research production in Iran has made significant strides in the recent years and researchers should focus on the quality of the study in this field in order to apply research production in evidence base dentistry.
| S-EPMC4037268 | biostudies-other