bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒07‒21
thirteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Adv Nurs. 2019 Jul 16.
    Watson R, Xue C.
      We are both editors and we are both involved in providing training in writing for publication in academic journals. We work in different countries, different cultures and even in different languages. However, we find a range of common and frequent questions from our audiences and, among these-many of which are excellent and which we are only too pleased to answer-we find questions which are increasingly unacceptable, unnecessary and which, we consider, are incompatible with good scholarly and publishing practice. We address these questions below. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14158
  2. J Postgrad Med. 2019 Jul-Sep;65(3):65(3): 129-131
    Gogtay NJ, Bavdekar SB.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_266_19
  3. J Assoc Physicians India. 2018 Dec;66(12): 39-42
    Nagarajan VB, Bhide S, Kanase HR, Potey AV, Tadavi F.
      Purpose Aim: Quality of reporting is very important in medical research. To ensure a uniform and detailed reporting of observational studies experts came out with a checklist of items, named 'Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology' (STROBE). The present study examines the adherence of observational studies published in selected Indian journals from 2011-2015 to STROBE Statement.Method: 7 open access Indian journals, belonging to different specialities were selected. All the observational studies were assessed by 5 independent reviewers for the adherence to STROBE checklist as 'yes, partly and no'. The completeness of reporting was also assessed.
    Results: A total of 271 articles were examined. Only 10 items (Abstract, Background/rationale, Objectives, Study Setting, Data sources/ measurement, Quantitative variables, number of Participants at each stage, Characteristics of study participants, Key results) out of the 22 items and their subdivisions of STROBE were adhered to, in more than 70% of articles. Other 10 items (bias, subgroup analysis, addressing missing data, sensitivity analysis, reason for nonparticipation, flow diagram, missing data) had adherence in less than 30% of the articles. The completeness of reporting was 50.5%, 49.12% and 43.06% in cross sectional, cohort and case control study, respectively.
    Conclusion: The overall reporting was suboptimal. The completeness of reporting did not differ in the three types of observational study designs.
  4. Rheumatol Int. 2019 Jul 13.
    Coskun Benlidayi I.
      
    Keywords:  Access to information; Databases; Information dissemination; Journal article; Open-access publishing; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04380-y
  5. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Jul 08. pii: S1268-7731(19)30106-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Richter M.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.07.001
  6. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 Jul 16.
    Smaldone A, Heitkemper E, Jackman K, Joanne Woo K, Kelson J.
      PURPOSE: The study purpose was to compare dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format: traditional (five-chapter document providing a complete and systematic account of the PhD research) versus an alternate (substudy [document containing three smaller studies but not written as stand-alone manuscripts] or publication [document containing three or more related manuscripts intended for submission or published in a peer-reviewed journal]) format.DESIGN: A retrospective study of all PhD dissertations (1999-2019) from one research intensive school of nursing.
    METHODS: Following identification of graduates via the school's PhD database, we searched ProQuest and PubMed databases for the dissertation and first authored peer-reviewed publications of each graduate to determine dissertation format, study design, timing and number of dissertation research publications, and inclusion of dissertation sponsor in authorship. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
    FINDINGS: Of 113 graduates, 80 (70.8%) employed a traditional format, with the remaining graduates structuring dissertations using an alternate (substudy [n = 12], publication [n = 21]) format. Of those using the traditional format, 33 graduates (41.3%) never published dissertation research findings in a peer-reviewed journal. For those who published their dissertation research in a peer-reviewed journal, time to first publication was 1.4 ± 2.1 years (median 1.6 years) following degree conferral. In contrast, all graduates who utilized alternate formats published one or more components of their dissertation research with shorter time to first published manuscript (-0.6 ± 1.1 years; median -0.5 years; p < .001). Number of peer-reviewed publications was higher for those who utilized an alternate format compared to the traditional format (2.9 ± 1.5 [median 3.0] vs. 1.8 ± 1.1 [median 1.0], p = .001). Acknowledgment of the sponsor's contribution via publication authorship was higher for those using an alternate format compared to the traditional format (100% vs. 70.2%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Number and timeliness of peer-reviewed publications stemming from dissertation research was higher for PhD graduates who utilized an alternate dissertation format. Alternate dissertation formats should be encouraged by PhD programs as one means to improve dissemination of PhD nursing research.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dissemination of PhD research through peer-reviewed publications promotes the continued development of nursing science to inform nursing practice and advances the career trajectory of PhD graduates.
    Keywords:  Dissemination; PhD student; dissertation format; nursing research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12504
  7. Nature. 2019 Jul;571(7765): 316-318
    Pulla P.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Databases; Developing world; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02142-1
  8. Lancet. 2019 Jul 13. pii: S0140-6736(19)31575-2. [Epub ahead of print]394(10193): 94
    The Lancet .
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31575-2