Dataset Information

Respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic scientometric analysis of the global publication output and the gender distribution of publishing authors.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Worldwide, the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) represents the predominant viral agent causing bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children. To conduct research and tackle existing healthcare disparities, RSV-related research activities around the globe need to be described. Hence, we assessed the associated scientific output (represented by research articles) by geographical, chronological and socioeconomic criteria and analysed the authors publishing in the field by gender. Also, the 15 most cited articles and the most prolific journals were identified for RSV research. DESIGN:Retrospective, descriptive study. SETTING:The NewQIS (New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science) platform was employed to identify RSV-related articles published in the Web of Science until 2013. We performed a numerical analysis of all articles, and examined citation-based aspects (eg, citation rates); results were visualised by density equalising mapping tools. RESULTS:We identified 4600 RSV-related articles. The USA led the field; US-American authors published 2139 articles (46.5%% of all identified articles), which have been cited 83?000 times. When output was related to socioeconomic benchmarks such as gross domestic product or Research and Development expenditures, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia and Chile were ranked in leading positions. A total of 614 articles on RSV (13.34% of all articles) were attributed to scientific collaborations. These were primarily established between high-income countries. The gender analysis indicated that male scientists dominated in all countries except Brazil. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of RSV-related research articles originated from high-income countries whereas developing nations showed only minimal publication productivity and were barely part of any collaborative networks. Hence, research capacity in these nations should be increased in order to assist in addressing inequities in resource allocation and the clinical burden of RSV in these countries.

SUBMITTER: Bruggmann D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5577886 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic scientometric analysis of the global publication output and the gender distribution of publishing authors.

Brüggmann Dörthe D Köster Corinna C Klingelhöfer Doris D Bauer Jan J Ohlendorf Daniela D Bundschuh Matthias M Groneberg David A DA

BMJ open 20170726 7

<h4>Objective</h4>Worldwide, the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) represents the predominant viral agent causing bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children. To conduct research and tackle existing healthcare disparities, RSV-related research activities around the globe need to be described. Hence, we assessed the associated scientific output (represented by research articles) by geographical, chronological and socioeconomic criteria and analysed the authors publishing in the field by gender. Also, ...[more]

PMID: 28751483

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To gather information about current practices and implementation of publication guidelines among publication professionals working in or for the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN/SETTING:Web-based survey publicised via email and social media to members of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organisations from November 2012 to February 2013. PARTICIPANTS:469 individuals involved in publishing industry-sponsored research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly working in pharmaceutical or device companies ('industry', n=144), communication agencies ('agency', n=238), contract research organisations (CRO, n=15) or as freelancers (n=34). Most respondents (78%) had worked on medical publications for ?5 years and 62% had a PhD/MD. RESULTS:Over 90% of industry, agency and CRO respondents routinely refer to Good Publication Practice (GPP2) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements. Most respondents (78% industry, 79% agency) received mandatory training on ethical publication practices. Over 90% of respondents' companies had publication guidelines or policies and required medical writing support to be acknowledged in publications (96% industry, 99% agency). Many industry respondents used publication management tools to monitor compliance with company guidelines and about half (46%) stated that their company had formal publication audits. Fewer agencies audited adherence to guidelines but 20% of agency respondents reported audits of employees and 6% audits of freelancers. Of concern, 37% of agency respondents reported requests from authors or sponsors that they believed were unethical, although 93% of these requests were withdrawn after respondents explained the need for compliance with guidelines. Most respondents' departments (63% industry, 58% agency, 60% CRO) had been involved in publishing studies with negative or inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS:Within this sample, most publication professionals working in or for industry were aware of, and applying, major publication guidelines. However, the survey also identified specific areas where education and promotion of guidelines are needed to ensure ethical publication practices.

Project description:Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future. Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open. Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor's journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future. Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.

Project description:BackgroundStrong growth of interdisciplinary sciences might find exceptional example in academic health economics. We decided to observe the quantitative output in this science since the beginning of the twenty-first century.MethodsElectronic search of the published literature was conducted in four different databases: one medical database-MEDLINE/PubMed, two general databases-Scopus/Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS), and one specialized health economic database-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED). The applied combination of key words was carefully chosen to cover the most commonly used terms in titles of publications dealing with conceptual areas of health economics. All bibliographic units were taken into account.ResultsWithin the time horizon from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016, without language or limitations on bibliographic unit types, we identified an output ranging approximately from 60,345 to 88,246 records with applied search strategy in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus/Elsevier, and WoS. In NHS EED, we detected 14,761 records of economic evaluations of health interventions during the period in which database was maintained and regularly updated. With slightly more than one-third of the identified records, USA clearly dominates in this field. United Kingdom takes a strong second place with about 12% of identified records. Consistently, USA and UK universities are the most frequent among the top 15 affiliations/organizations of the authors of the identified records. Authors from Harvard University contributed to the largest number of the identified records.ConclusionThere is a clear evidence of both the upward stream of blossoming in health economics publications and its acceleration. Based on this bibliographic data set, it is difficult to distinguish the actual impact growth of this output provided dominantly by academia with modest contribution by pharmaceutical/medicinal device industry and diverse national government-based agencies. Further insight into the citation track record of these individual publications could provide helpful upgrade and a perspective on ongoing development.

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Project description:BackgroundTo inform training program development and curricular initiatives, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. Our objective was to assess whether interdisciplinary academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in 15 top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), corresponding author gender, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years).Methods and findingsWe invited corresponding authors of original research articles to participate in an online survey (n = 103; response rate = 8.3% of 1240 invited authors). In bivariate analyses, year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants' confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Exceptions were participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training contribute to study design and interpretation, and participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities.ConclusionsThis study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Our quantitative results show research published in top-tier journals generally represents interdisciplinary teamwork and that interdisciplinary training may provide publication type options. Our qualitative results show researchers view interdisciplinary training favorably.

Dataset Information

Respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic scientometric analysis of the global publication output and the gender distribution of publishing authors.

Publications

Respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic scientometric analysis of the global publication output and the gender distribution of publishing authors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets