bims-skolko Biomed news
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2018‒12‒30
three papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018 Dec 24.
    Karadeniz PG, Uzabacı E, Kuyuk SA, Kesin FK, Can FE, Seçil M, Ercan İ.
      PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate articles in radiology journals indexed in the Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded in terms of statistical errors. By this means, we aim to contribute to the production of high quality scientific publications.METHODS: In this study, a total of 157 articles published in 2016-2017 in 20 radiology journals were reviewed randomly. Selected articles were evaluated for statistical errors regarding P values and statistical tests, and for errors in terminology and other errors related to interpretation. In addition, in order to examine whether the error rates of the articles published in the radiology journals differed according to the impact factor, the statistical errors were compared according to the impact factors of the journals.
    RESULTS: Of the 157 articles published in radiology journals, 10 had no statistical errors, while 147 had at least one statistical error in. The most frequently encountered error was "errors in summarizing data" with a rate of 66%. This was followed by "incorrect representation of P values" with a rate of 42%. The least frequently encountered error was "statistical symbol errors" with a rate of 3%. There was no statistically significant difference according to impact factors.
    CONCLUSION: In conclusion, radiology journals, as do journals in different fields, include articles containing statistical errors. Even when the quality of the journal increases, there is no difference in these statistical error rates. In order to prevent statistical errors in manuscripts, there are responsibilities for both the researchers who conduct scientific studies and the editors who publish these studies in their journals. Researchers should have a basic statistical knowledge, and the editor must submit all manuscripts for a statistical review.
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1): 327-331
    Andry D, Moliver C, Phillips LG.
      BACKGROUND: Authorship in a peer-reviewed journal is highly regarded in both the academic and private sectors of plastic surgery. Recently, several articles have cited an increased contribution from women in the plastic surgery literature; however, none to date has analyzed the demographic trends of these female authors. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of female authors in three well-known plastic surgery journals.METHODS: Articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal between January of 2015 and December of 2015 were reviewed. Supplemental journal, review, and CME articles were excluded. First, second, and last authors from the United States were reviewed and stratified by a number of categories, including sex, geographic location, and title.
    RESULTS: Two-thousand fifty authors were reviewed. Of these, 20 percent of first authors, 24 percent of second authors, and 15 percent of last authors were women. Female representation was fairly equal among the journals, and 39 percent of women authors were international. Overall, 16 percent of fully trained plastic surgeon authors and 25 percent of resident authors were women, as compared to 15 percent female fully trained plastic surgeons and 36.2 percent female residents represented in the overall community.
    CONCLUSIONS: Faculty are on par with national percentages of women plastic surgeons; however, women residents have lower representation in the literature than in the community as a whole. Residents and faculty must promote productivity of the younger generation of women plastic surgeons to continue increasing contributions of women to the specialty.
  3. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Dec 22. pii: S1546-1440(18)31405-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Burns J, Miller T, Weiss JM, Erdfarb A, Silber D, Goldberg-Stein S.
      Peer review is a cornerstone of quality improvement programs and serves to support the peer learning process. Peer review in radiology incorporates the review of diagnostic imaging interpretation, interventional procedures, communication, and the evaluation of untoward patient events. A just culture is an environment in which errors and near-miss events are evaluated in a deliberately nonpunitive framework, avoiding a culture of blame and responsibility and focusing instead on error prevention and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement. Adoption of a just culture requires careful attention to detail and relies on continuous coaching of individuals and teams to ensure future systems improvements and a culture of safety. The authors describe the practical implementation of a just culture framework for peer review in an academic radiology department and highlight its application to interpretive, noninterpretive, and procedural domains through case examples.
    Keywords:  Just culture; peer learning; peer review; quality improvement