Mapping the core journals of the physical therapy literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fell DW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3133899 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mapping the core journals of the physical therapy literature.
Fell Dennis W DW Burnham Judy F JF Buchanan Melanie J MJ Horchen Heidi A HA Scherr Joel A JA
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20110701 3
<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of this study was to identify (1) core journals in the literature of physical therapy, (2) currency of references cited in that literature, and (3) online databases providing the highest coverage rate of core journals.<h4>Method</h4>Data for each cited reference in each article of four source journals for three years were recorded, including type of literature, year of publication, and journal title. The journal titles were ranked in descending order according to t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study characterizes the literature of the radiation therapy profession, identifies the journals most frequently cited by authors writing in this discipline, and determines the level of coverage of these journals by major bibliographic indexes.MethodCited references from three discipline-specific source journals were analyzed according to the Mapping the Literature of Allied Health Project Protocol of the Nursing and Allied Health Resources Section of the Medical Library Association. Bradford's Law of Scattering was applied to all journal references to identify the most frequently cited journal titles.ResultsJournal references constituted 77.8% of the total, with books, government documents, Internet sites, and miscellaneous sources making up the remainder. Although a total of 908 journal titles were cited overall, approximately one-third of the journal citations came from just 11 journals. MEDLINE and Scopus provided the most comprehensive indexing of the journal titles in Zones 1 and 2. The source journals were indexed only by CINAHL and Scopus.ConclusionThe knowledgebase of radiation therapy draws heavily from the fields of oncology, radiology, medical physics, and nursing. Discipline-specific publications are not currently well covered by major indexing services, and those wishing to conduct comprehensive literature searches should search multiple resources.
| S-EPMC3634375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study updated Reed's 1999 "Mapping the Literature of Occupational Therapy." An analysis of citation patterns and indexing coverage was undertaken to identify the core literature of occupational therapy and to determine access to that literature.MethodsCitations from three source journals for the years 2006 through 2008 were studied following the common methodology of the "Mapping the Literature of Allied Health Project." Bradford's Law of Scattering was applied to analyze the productivity of cited journals. A comparative analysis of indexing was conducted across three bibliographic databases.ResultsA total of 364 articles cited 10,425 references. Journals were the most frequently cited format, accounting for 65.3% of the references, an increase of 4.1% over the 1999 study. Approximately one-third of the journal references cited a cluster of 9 journals, with the American Journal of Occupational Therapy dominating the field. An additional 120 journals were identified as moderately important based on times cited. CINAHL provided the most comprehensive indexing of core journals, while MEDLINE provided the best overall coverage.ConclusionsOccupational therapy is a multidisciplinary field with a strong core identity and an increasingly diverse literature. Indexing has improved overall since 1999, but gaps in the coverage are still evident.
| S-EPMC2901014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications. Discussion: The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.
| S-EPMC5611708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCharacteristics that identify patients who respond differently to certain interventions are called treatment effect modifiers. Some studies inappropriately report the presence of treatment effect modifiers without adequate study designs.ObjectivesTo evaluate what proportion of single-group studies published in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers, and to assess whether the proportion varies over time or between journals.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of studies published in eight leading physical therapy journals since 2000. Eligible studies were single-group studies (e.g., cohort study or secondary analysis of treatment arm of randomised controlled trial) that investigated any condition, treatment or outcome. Studies that suggested participants with certain baseline characteristics responded better/or worse to the treatment, were considered to have reported inappropriately. Studies reporting that participants with certain baseline characteristics had improved outcomes but did not state it was due to the treatment were considered to have reported appropriately. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was compared over time and between journals.ResultsOf the 145 included studies, 73 (50.3%) were categorised as inappropriately reporting treatment effect modifiers. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was highest in the most recent period, 2018 - 2022 (59.6%) and 2006 - 2011 (55.6%). The proportion of inappropriate reporting varied substantially between journals from 0% (Journal of Physiotherapy) to 91.7% (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy).ConclusionsA large proportion (50.3%) of single-arm studies in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers. This inappropriate reporting risks misleading clinicians when selecting interventions for individual patients.
| S-EPMC10387563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSynthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.MethodsWe identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.ResultsThe editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.DiscussionCurrently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.
| S-EPMC3341385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical journals use Twitter to engage and disseminate their research articles and implement a range of strategies to maximize reach and impact.ObjectiveThis study aims to systematically review the literature to synthesize and describe the different Twitter strategies used by medical journals and their effectiveness on journal impact and readership metrics.MethodsA systematic search of the literature before February 2020 in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Articles were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.ResultsThe search identified 44 original research studies that evaluated Twitter strategies implemented by medical journals and analyzed the relationship between Twitter metrics and alternative and citation-based metrics. The key findings suggest that promoting publications on Twitter improves citation-based and alternative metrics for academic medical journals. Moreover, implementing different Twitter strategies maximizes the amount of attention that publications and journals receive. The four key Twitter strategies implemented by many medical journals are tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. Each strategy was successful in promoting the publications. However, different metrics were used to measure success.ConclusionsFour key Twitter strategies are implemented by medical journals: tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. In this review, each strategy was successful in promoting publications but used different metrics to measure success. Thus, it is difficult to conclude which strategy is most effective. In addition, the four strategies have different costs and effects on dissemination and readership. We recommend that journals and researchers incorporate a combination of Twitter strategies to maximize research impact and capture audiences with a variety of learning methods.
| S-EPMC8367184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper analyses the Editorial Board (EB) distribution of Occupational Therapy journals from a gender perspective. The "Occupational Therapy" field in the Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and the "Occupational Therapy" term in the title search of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) were used to find the Occupational Therapy-specific journals. The following indicators were calculated: Editorial Board Member (EBM) gender distribution by journal, publisher, subject speciality, country, and journal quartile. Thirty-seven journals were located, including 667 individuals, 206 males (31%) and 461 females (69%). Referring to the EB positions, most members (557) were EB members, 70 were listed as Associate Editors, and 20 as Editorial Leaders. The results show that the proportion of women in the EB's of Occupational Therapy journals represents a majority. Regarding the distribution by gender of the EBMs, six journals had a female proportion below the cut-off point revealed in this study (69%). Four did not reach parity, with female representation below 50%. Additionally, the balance among the EBMs is significantly underrepresented compared to the percentage of female Occupational Therapy practitioners.
| S-EPMC9966705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 2000 and 2012. We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists.ResultsOver the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators.ConclusionsThis study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field.
| S-EPMC6460771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study identified the journals with the highest yield of clinical obesity research articles and surveyed the scatter of such studies across journals. The study exemplifies an approach to establish a journal collection that is likely to contain most new knowledge about a field.All original studies that were cited in 40 systematic reviews about obesity topics ('included studies') were compiled and journal titles in which they were published were extracted. The journals were ranked by the number of included studies. The highest-yielding journals for clinical obesity and the scatter across journal titles were determined. A subset of these journals was created in MEDLINE (PubMed) to test search recall and precision for high-quality studies of obesity treatment (that is, articles that pass predetermined methodology criteria, including random allocation of participants to comparison groups, assessment of clinical outcomes, and at least 80% follow-up).Articles in 252 journals were cited in the systematic reviews. The three highest-yielding journals specialized in obesity, but they published only 19.2% of the research, leaving 80.8% scattered across 249 non-obesity journals. The MEDLINE journal subset comprised 241 journals (11 journals were not indexed in MEDLINE) and included 82% of the clinical obesity research articles retrieved by a search for high-quality treatment studies ('recall' of 82%). Of the articles retrieved, 11% were about clinical obesity care ('precision' of 11%), compared with precision of 6% for obesity treatment studies in the full MEDLINE database.Obesity journals captured only a small proportion of the literature on clinical obesity care. Those wishing to keep up in this field will need to develop more inclusive strategies than reading these specialty journals. A journal subset based on these findings may be useful when searching large electronic databases to increase search precision.
| S-EPMC2888815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the early 2000s, a number of publications in the medical literature have highlighted inadequacies in the design, conduct and reporting of pilot trials. This work led to two notable publications in 2016: a conceptual framework for defining feasibility studies and an extension to the CONSORT 2010 statement to include pilot trials. It was hoped that these publications would educate researchers, leading to better use of pilot trials and thus more rigorously planned and informed randomised controlled trials. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the impact of these publications in the field of physical activity by reviewing the literature pre- and post-2016. This first article presents the pre-2016 review of the reporting and the current editorial policy applied to pilot trials published in physical activity journals.MethodsFourteen physical activity journals were screened for pilot and feasibility studies published between 2012 and 2015. The CONSORT 2010 extension to pilot and feasibility studies was used as a framework to assess the reporting quality of the studies. Editors of the eligible physical activity journals were canvassed regarding their editorial policy for pilot and feasibility studies.ResultsThirty-one articles across five journals met the eligibility criteria. These articles fell into three distinct categories: trials that were carried out in preparation for a future definitive trial (23%), trials that evaluated the feasibility of a novel intervention but did not explicitly address a future definitive trial (23%) and trials that did not have any clear objectives to address feasibility (55%). Editors from all five journals stated that they generally do not accept pilot trials, and none gave reference to the CONSORT 2010 extension as a guideline for submissions.ConclusionThe result that over half of the studies did not have feasibility objectives is in line with previous research findings, demonstrating that these findings are not being disseminated effectively to researchers in the field of physical activity. The low standard of reporting across most reviewed articles and the neglect of the extended CONSORT 2010 statement by the journal editors highlight the need to actively disseminate these guidelines to ensure their impact.
| S-EPMC6048748 | biostudies-literature