Dataset Information

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.

Methods

In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist.

Results

Among case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively).

Conclusion

The epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.

SUBMITTER: Pastorino R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4864356 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

Pastorino Roberta R Milovanovic Sonja S Stojanovic Jovana J Efremov Ljupcho L Amore Rosarita R Boccia Stefania S

PloS one 20160511 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals.<h4>Methods</h4>In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA a ...[more]

PMID: 27167982

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals' high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani's suggestion that OAMJs's citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a "typical" mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.

Project description:Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool. Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7-75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5-22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6-67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9-64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1-55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1-83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3-53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5-29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics. Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

Project description:Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases' criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ's coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, one journal had received an impact factor for 2012, and 59.6% of the journals had no content from 2013 indexed in DOAJ. Conclusions. DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.

Dataset Information

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets