PLOS Medicine 2017 Reviewer and Editorial Board Thank You
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5854231 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006359.].
| S-EPMC5898705 | biostudies-other
Project description:In recognition of Open Access week (21st-27th October 2013), we asked some BMC Medicine Editorial Board Members to share their views and experiences on open access publishing. In this short video, they highlight the benefits of visibility and dissemination of their research, and discuss the future directions for this model of publishing.
| S-EPMC3897970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article presents the frequency of distribution of editorial members of Dove Medical press, across the world based on their official stated affiliations. Uneven distributions across the six continents were observed and this was confirmed by the Chi-square test of goodness of fit. Further research can focus on data on the gender composition, distribution of the affiliations of the first or corresponding authors of the respective journals, citation and editorial board composition based on the abstraction and indexation of the journals.
| S-EPMC6148734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Neglected Diseases section will no longer focus on chronic tropical infections, but on other neglected health problems that have a major global burden.
| S-EPMC2253615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The statistical analysis of editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile of 180 Hindawi journals currently indexed in Scopus are presented in this data article. The three indicators (editorial board composition, Citescore and percentile) can be helpful for researchers to make informed decision about the impact of Hindawi journals. The last two indicators are components of Scopus Citescore metrics.
| S-EPMC6139471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the influence of external peer reviewer scores on the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) research funding board decisions by the number of reviewers and type of reviewer expertise. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of external peer review scores for shortlisted full applications for funding (280 funding applications, 1236 individual reviewers, 1561 review scores). SETTING:Four applied health research funding programmes of NIHR, UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Board decision to fund or not fund research applications. RESULTS:The mean score of reviewers predicted funding decisions better than individual reviewer scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.75, 95%?CI 0.69 to 0.81 compared with 0.62, CI 0.59 to 0.65). There was no substantial improvement in how accurately mean reviewer scores predicted funding decisions when the number of reviewers increased above 4 (area under ROC curve 0.75, CI 0.59 to 0.91 for four reviewers; 0.80, CI 0.67 to 0.92 for seven or more). Reviewers with differing expertise influenced the board's decision equally, including public and patient reviewers (area under ROC curves from 0.57, CI 0.47 to 0.66 for health economists to 0.64, CI 0.57 to 0.70 for subject-matter experts). The areas under the ROC curves were quite low when using reviewers' scores, confirming that boards do not rely solely on those scores alone to make their funding decisions, which are best predicted by the mean board score. CONCLUSIONS:Boards value scores that originate from a diverse pool of reviewers. On the basis of independent reviewer score alone, there is no detectable benefit of using more than four reviewer scores in terms of their influence on board decisions, so to improve efficiency, it may be possible to avoid using larger numbers of reviewers. The funding decision is best predicted by the board score.
| S-EPMC6303617 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8720958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This data article contains the statistical analysis of the total, percentage and distribution of editorial board composition of 111 Hindawi journals indexed in Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) across the continents. The reliability of the data was shown using correlation, goodness-of-fit test, analysis of variance and statistical variability tests.
| S-EPMC5988440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBecause women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted.ObjectivesTo investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient.Main outcomes and measuresThe h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication.ResultsOf the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [IQR, 19-40], P < .001; male vs female societies: 27 [IQR, 15-41] vs 17 [IQR, 8-32], P = .006), median publication numbers (male vs female journal board members: 157 [IQR, 88-254] vs 109 [IQR, 66-188], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 109 [IQR, 57-190] vs 58 [IQR, 28-139, P = .001), and median citations (male vs female journal board members: 4027 [IQR, 1897-8005] vs 2871 [IQR, 1344-5852], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 2228 [IQR, 1005-5069] vs 1090 [IQR, 410-2527], P = .003). However, the median m-quotients for male and female board members were comparable (male vs female journal board members: 1.2 [IQR, 0.8-1.6] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.8-1.5], P = .54; male vs female society board members: 1.0 [IQR, 0.7-1.4] vs 0.9 [IQR, 0.6-1.3], P = .32).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that the sex composition on journal editorial and professional society boards in ophthalmology is consistent with the sex composition of ophthalmologists in the US, as reported by the Association of American Colleges, but that editor in chief and society president positions are male dominated despite the apparent equality in academic productivity.
| S-EPMC7099467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) allows post-interview contact between residency applicants and residency programs. Thank-you communications represent one of the most common forms, but data on their value to applicants and program directors (PD) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of thank-you communications on applicant- and residency-program rank lists.MethodsTwo anonymous, voluntary surveys were sent after the 2018 NRMP Match, one to applicants who were offered an interview at a single academic site in the 2017-2018 Match cycle, and one to EM PDs nationwide. The surveys were designed in conjunction with a nationally-recognized survey center and piloted and revised based on feedback from residents and faculty.ResultsOf 196 residency applicants, 97 (49.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 73/95 (76.8%) reported sending thank-you communications. Twenty-two of 73 (30%) stated that they sent thank-you communications to improve their spot on a program's rank list; and 16 of 73 (21.9%) reported that they changed their rank list based upon the responses they received to their thank-you communications. Of 163 PDs, 99 (60.7%) responded to the survey. Of those PDs surveyed, 22.6% reported that an applicant could be moved up their program's rank list and 10.8% reported that an applicant could move down a program's rank list based on their thank-you communications (or lack thereof).ConclusionThe majority of applicants to EM are sending thank-you communications. A significant minority of applicants and PDs changed their rank list due to post-interview thank-you communications.
| S-EPMC6948692 | biostudies-literature