Impact of co-investigators on pharmacy resident research publication.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stranges PM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5499349 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundScholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed.MethodsAll the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between 'submission date' and 'acceptance date'), lead lag (days between 'acceptance date' and 'online publication date'), and indexing lag (days between 'online publication date' and 'Entry date'). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups.ResultsThe 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57-173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56-155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen's d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6-35) and 23 days (IQR 9-45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2-46) and 4 days (IQR 2-12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups.ConclusionsPublication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.
| S-EPMC8241115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThrough a 4-year follow-up of the abstracts submitted to the European Society of Cardiology Congress in 2006, we aimed at identifying factors predicting high-quality research, appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes, and thereby revealing potential ways to improve future research, peer review, and editorial work. METHODS AND RESULTS All abstracts submitted in 2006 were assessed for acceptance, presentation format, and average reviewer rating. Accepted and rejected studies were followed for 4 years. Multivariate regression analyses of a representative selection of 10% of all abstracts (n= 1002) were performed to identify factors predicting acceptance, subsequent publication, and citation. A total of 10 020 abstracts were submitted, 3104 (31%) were accepted for poster, and 701 (7%) for oral presentation. At Congress level, basic research, a patient number ≥ 100, and prospective study design were identified as independent predictors of acceptance. These factors differed from those predicting full-text publication, which included academic affiliation. The single parameter predicting frequent citation was study design with randomized controlled trials reaching the highest citation rates. The publication rate of accepted studies was 38%, whereas only 24% of rejected studies were published. Among published studies, those accepted at the Congress received higher citation rates than rejected ones.ConclusionsResearch of high quality was determined by study design and largely identified at Congress level through blinded peer review. The scientometric follow-up revealed a marked disparity between predictors of full-text publication and those predicting citation or acceptance at the Congress.
| S-EPMC3530902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose was to explore preceptors, residency program directors (RPDs), and residents' beliefs and intentions in participating in multicenter pediatric resident research projects (PRRPs).MethodsThis exploratory qualitative study used the theory of planned behavior to explore beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward participation in a multicenter PRRP. Two focus groups were formed: RPDs/preceptors and pharmacy residents. The primary objective was to identify attitudes/salient beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls regarding participation in multicenter PRRPs. The secondary objectives included identifying potential barriers and mitigation strategies for multicenter PRRPs. Descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis were performed.ResultsThe 2 focus groups included 24 participants: RPDs/preceptors (n = 16) and pharmacy residents (n = 8). The RPD/preceptor group had a mean of 7.4 ± 5.4 years of research experience; all residents had prior research experience as students. Participants shared and contrasted their salient beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control beliefs about logistical challenges, networking, mentoring, sample size, collaboration, workload, shared responsibilities for data collection and the institutional review board application, and resources associated with participation in multicenter PRRPs. Other items that participants felt were important were discussion of authorship order and dedicated research time for residents.ConclusionsParticipants provided favorable comments toward multicenter PRRPs but acknowledged some barriers. The resident, preceptor, and RPD intention to participate in multi-center PRRPs is very likely if they perceive this as an opportunity for increased networking and mentorship, increased likelihood of publication, enhanced research skill experience, and shared resources and responsibilities.
| S-EPMC8475803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate the relationships between students' characteristics and their (a) perceptions of research in general and (b) attitudes towards pharmacy practice research; (2) identify strategies that could be used by pharmacy educators to promote research interest in pharmacy practice; and (3) identify perceived barriers to the pursuit or completion of a pharmacy practice research degree. METHODS: A survey was administered to all students enrolled in each year of the four-year pharmacy undergraduate program, University of Sydney, Australia. Perceptions of research in general were measured using 4 items on a five-point semantic-differential scale and attitudes towards pharmacy practice research were measured using 16 items on a five-point Likert scale. Student characteristics were also collected as were responses to open-ended questions which were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: In total 853 students participated and completed the survey (83% response rate). Participants' characteristics were associated with some but not all aspects of research and pharmacy practice research. It appeared that positive attitudes and perspectives were influenced strongly by exposure to the 'research' process through projects, friends or mentors, previous degrees or having future intentions to pursue a research degree. Results from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest positive attitudes and perceptions of research can be nurtured through the formal inclusion in research processes, particularly the utility of practice research in clinical practice across the four years of study. Participants indicated there was a lack of awareness of the needs, benefits and career opportunities associated with pharmacy practice research and voiced clear impediments in their career path with respect to the choice of practice research-related careers. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should investigate changes in perceptions and attitudes in a single cohort over the four-year degree, other factors influencing students' perceptions and attitudes, and evaluate the effectiveness of research promoting strategies and programs.
| S-EPMC4582744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Abstract presentations at professional meetings provide a medium for disseminating the findings of scholarly activity. Rates of abstract publication from various biomedical disciplines have been evaluated, with pharmacy noted to be lower than other specialties. Previous research on pharmacy abstract publication rates was conducted for a limited number of professional meetings but has not been assessed using Google Scholar. OBJECTIVE: To determine the full publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Spring and Annual Meetings, American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Annual Meeting, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings. METHODS: Publication status was assessed for abstracts presented during the 2005 ACCP Spring and Annual Meetings, APhA Annual Meeting, and ASHP Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings using PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included abstract category, study category, practice site, database(s) in which publication appeared, time in months to publication, publication type, and journal of publication. RESULTS: Evaluation of 2,000 abstracts presented in 2005 revealed an overall full publication rate of 19.8% (n = 384). Nearly all pharmacy abstracts were published as manuscripts (98.4%; n=378) and indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar (91.9%; n = 353), although a significant percentage were indexed in Google Scholar only (7.8%; n = 30). The mean time to full publication was 16.8 months (SD ±11.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent with previously reported full publication rates of abstracts from pharmacy association meetings, indicating that abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings continue to have a lower full publication rate than other health disciplines.
| S-EPMC3839506 | biostudies-other
Project description:Researchers in Europe are increasingly assessed by their publication metrics. To uncover the effect of quantitative assessment on the publication strategies of clinical researchers in Denmark, we interviewed 9 senior researchers at the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark with the lowest and highest values for a, as defined by Hirsch. Our aim is to investigate the importance of these metrics to their academic careers: h-index, number of publications, number of citations, international collaborations, local collaborations, field specific journal publishing and high journal impact factor publishing. To validate our findings we compared their publication record to their statistically analyzed stated publication strategy. Our results indicate two styles of publication strategy used by these senior researchers. Researchers with Low a engage in local collaborations, disseminate knowledge in local media and publish in field specific journals, while researchers with High a engage in international collaborations, invest significant time in publishing in the highest impact journals in their field, and acquire a greater number of citations. Both publication strategies can lead to a successful academic career, yet we have an indication through the h5-index that the practices of the High a group are more likely to nudge the h-index.
| S-EPMC6992234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies.ResultsAmong the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8-5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8-24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0-14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0-13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0-6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001).ConclusionIn this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research. META-RESEARCH REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/9vtzp/ .
| S-EPMC8607966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Exposure to ambient particulate matter is a major health risk factor for numerous diseases, including those of the cardiovascular and respiratory varieties. The aim of this study was to estimate the latest global research activities regarding particulate matter and health impact. We performed a bibliometric analysis of this field's scientific publication trends over a decade (2009-2018). Publications were retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases using the search terms "particulate matter," "fine particulate matter," "health impact," and their synonyms. The literature on health impact in the research fields of particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) trended to significantly increase over the decade in consideration. It appears to have been led by researchers of the United States and China. Worldwide research on particulate matter and health effects has focused primarily on respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The precursors to and components of particulate matter (such as nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, sulfur dioxide, and black carbon) were also popular research topics in this field. Research on children, older adults, and pregnant women, who are most vulnerable to the health effects of air pollution, has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Our findings provide the information necessary to predict unmet research topics and future research needs.
| S-EPMC8207006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publishing in JCR and SJR journals has become crucial for curricular development. Results from nursing investigations "compete" for publication in journals which are not specific to the field of care, affecting the academic development of these investigators. This phenomenon may lead to an ongoing adverse effect on nursing researchers and academics engaged in research in nursing care. The aim of this study was to evaluate habits regarding scientific literature consulting, the transfer of published material, and the citation of nursing investigations. A cross-sectional descriptive study by means of questionnaires was carried out, focusing on both Spanish and Portuguese nurses. The findings of the study reveal the following reasons for reading the scientific literature: that the language was understood; for learning and applying what was learnt; that the journal was of open access; for elaborating protocols and work procedures; and that the journal was indexed in scientific databases and in nursing databases. The reasons for reading, using, and publishing in journals were related to knowledge of the language and the associated usefulness of learning and applying knowledge. Creating a specific index of research publications in nursing will have a positive effect on the scientific production of caring methodologies.
| S-EPMC10049027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Breast cancer is one of the highest reasons of deaths for people in the world. The objective of current study is to analyze and visualize the trend of global scientific activities in the field of breast cancer during a period of 10 years through 2006-2015. Methods: The current study was performed by utilizing the scientometrics analysis and mapping the co-authorship and co-organization networks. The Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC)database was used to extract all papers indexed as a topic of breast cancer through 2006 to 2015. Research productivity was measured through analysis several parameters, including: the number and time course of publications, the journal and language of publications, the frequency and type of publications, as well as top 20 active sub-categories together with country contribution. The extracted data were transferred into the Excel charts and plotted as diagrams. The Science of Science (Sci2) and CiteSpace softwares were used as tools for mapping the co-authorship and co-organization networks of the published papers. Results: Analysis of data indicated that the number of publications in the field of breast cancer has linearly increased and correlated with the time-course of the study. The number of publication indexed in WoS-CC in 2015 was two times greater than that of 2006, which reached from 15 229 documents in 2006 to 30 667 documents in 2015. English Language accounted for 98% of total publications as the most dominant language. The vast majority of publications' type was in the form of original journal articles (64.7%). Based on Bradford scatterings law, the journal of "Cancer Research" was the most productive journal among the core journals, while the USA, China, and England were the most prolific countries in the field. The co-organization network indicated the dominant role of Harvard University in the field. Conclusion: The integrity of network indicated that scientists in the field of breast cancer working collaboratively to tackle the number one threat in women health.
| S-EPMC5326669 | biostudies-other