Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Di Girolamo N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4734056 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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:ImportanceHigh-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated.ResultsIn this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]).Conclusion and relevanceIn this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.
| S-EPMC10722334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since 2012, skills labs have been set up to teach practical skills at veterinary training facilities in the German-speaking world. In addition to didactic considerations, ethical points of view in terms of animal protection form the basis of the increasing significance of skills labs in veterinary medicine. Not least because of the quality standards in veterinary medicine training which apply across Europe, the link between veterinary medicine training facilities is particularly significant when it comes to the setting up and development of skills labs. The Committee on Veterinary Medicine is therefore not only interested in exchange and cooperation within veterinary medicine, but also sees an opportunity for mutual gain in the link with the Society for Medical Education Committee "Practical Skills".
| S-EPMC5003139 | biostudies-other
Project description:Radiotherapy plays an important role in curative and palliative cancer treatment. As a novel radiation delivery technique, stereotactic radiotherapy utilizes three-dimensional-conformal treatment planning, high-precision beam delivery technology, and patient specific position verification to target tumors, often in one to five high-dose fractions. Currently, there is no consensus about best stereotactic radiotherapy practices in veterinary radiotherapy. The objective of this study was to document the breadth of perspectives, techniques, and applications of stereotactic radiotherapy in veterinary medicine. We conducted an online survey of American College of Veterinary Radiology members specializing in radiation oncology to assess how, when, and why stereotactic radiotherapy is being used. Both stereotactic radiotherapy users and nonusers completed the survey. The overall response and survey completion rates were 54% (67/123) and 87% (58/67), respectively. Overall, 55% of respondents reported providing stereotactic radiotherapy at their facility, with a median of 4.5 canine cases and one feline case per month. Delivery methods included C-arm linear accelerator with multi-leaf collimator, helical tomotherapy, and CyberKnife. Nonpituitary intracranial tumors, pituitary tumors, and sinonasal tumors were the most common cancers treated using stereotactic radiotherapy in both species. The most common fractionation scheme was three fractions of 10 Gy/fraction. The results of this survey suggest common availability of stereotactic radiotherapy in veterinary radiation facilities. These results provide valuable information regarding current stereotactic radiotherapy practices in veterinary medicine, and may provide an initial step toward standardizing methods and establishing consensus guidelines.
| S-EPMC6218303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether regional biomedical journals in Africa had policies on plagiarism and procedures to detect it; and to measure the extent of plagiarism in their original research articles and reviews.DesignCross sectional survey.Setting and participantsWe selected journals with an editor-in-chief in Africa, a publisher based in a low or middle income country and with author guidelines in English, and systematically searched the African Journals Online database. From each of the 100 journals identified, we randomly selected five original research articles or reviews published in 2016.OutcomesFor included journals, we examined the presence of plagiarism policies and whether they referred to text matching software. We submitted articles to Turnitin and measured the extent of plagiarism (copying of someone else's work) or redundancy (copying of one's own work) against a set of criteria we had developed and piloted.ResultsOf the 100 journals, 26 had a policy on plagiarism and 16 referred to text matching software. Of 495 articles, 313 (63%; 95%?CI 58 to 68) had evidence of plagiarism: 17% (83) had at least four linked copied or more than six individual copied sentences; 19% (96) had three to six copied sentences; and the remainder had one or two copied sentences. Plagiarism was more common in the introduction and discussion, and uncommon in the results.ConclusionPlagiarism is common in biomedical research articles and reviews published in Africa. While wholesale plagiarism was uncommon, moderate text plagiarism was extensive. This could rapidly be eliminated if journal editors implemented screening strategies, including text matching software.
| S-EPMC6231593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough medical publications are frequently used as the source of information, the prevalence of errata remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine peer-review and publication processes of medical journals as well as to determine the occurrence of reported errata in medical journals and timeliness in identifying and correcting errata.MethodsFive medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of American Medical Association, and Lancet, were evaluated. The characteristics of these journals were obtained from editors' survey. All these journals report errata noted in their prior publications. We retrospectively analyzed all errata reported from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012. The mean number of reported errata per issue, the most common errata, and the mean time to report errata were calculated.ResultsThe journals had high impact factors (14-51), received 3,200 to more than 15,000 submissions in 2012, and utilized two or more external reviewers and usually two or more editors for any accepted articles. All the journals edited the accepted articles, including references, figures, and tables for style. A mean of 1.3 articles with ≥1 errata was reported per issue (a total of 306 articles with errata in 226 issues). Errata in author's information, numeric errata, and errata in the figures and tables were the most common errata. The mean time to report the errata was 122 days.ConclusionThe high-impact journals, with extensive pre-publication review, reported relatively few errata per issue. The delay in reporting errata needs further exploration.
| S-EPMC4246137 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC35347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statistical methods are vital to biomedical research. Our aim was to find out whether progress has been made in the last decade in the use of statistical methods in Chinese medical research. We reviewed 10 leading Chinese medical journals published in 1998 and in 2008. Regarding statistical methods, using a multiple t-test for multiple group comparison was the most common error in the t-test in both years, which significantly decreased in 2008. In contingency tables, no significant level adjustment for multiple comparison significantly decreased in 2008. In ANOVA, over a quarter of articles misused the method of multiple pair-wise comparison in both years, and no significant difference was seen between the two years. In the rank transformation nonparametric test, the error of using multiple pair-wise comparison for multiple group comparison became less common. Many mistakes were found in the randomised controlled trial (56.3% in 1998; 67.9% in 2008), non- randomised clinical trial (57.3%; 58.6%), basic science study (72.9%; 65.5%), case study or case series study (48.4%; 47.2%), and cross-sectional study (57.1%; 44.2%). Progress has been made in the use of statistical methods in Chinese medical journals, but much is yet to be done.
| S-EPMC3217588 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the accessibility of absolute risk in articles reporting ratio measures in leading medical journals.DesignStructured review of abstracts presenting ratio measures.SettingArticles published between 1 June 2003 and 1 May 2004 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine.Participants222 articles based on study designs in which absolute risks were directly calculable (61 randomised trials, 161 cohort studies).Main outcome measureAccessibility of the absolute risks underlying the first ratio measure in the abstract.Results68% of articles (150/222) failed to report the underlying absolute risks for the first ratio measure in the abstract (range 55-81% across the journals). Among these articles, about half did report the underlying absolute risks elsewhere in the article (text, table, or figure) but half did not report them anywhere. Absolute risks were more likely to be reported in the abstract for randomised trials compared with cohort studies (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 4.2) and for studies reporting crude compared with adjusted ratio measures (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 2.1 to 4.3).ConclusionAbsolute risks are often not easily accessible in articles reporting ratio measures and sometimes are missing altogether-this lack of accessibility can easily exaggerate readers' perceptions of benefit or harm.
| S-EPMC1702463 | biostudies-literature