bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2021‒06‒06
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021 Jun 02. 6(1): 9
      BACKGROUND: The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.METHODS: We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.
    DISCUSSION: The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: .
    Keywords:  Open science; Reproducibility; Research transparency; TOP factor; TOP guidelines
  2. Int Nurs Rev. 2021 Jun;68(2): 147-148
      In celebration of International Nurses Day 2021 and in critique of scholars who are driven to publish as many articles as possible in highly ranked journals, a short poem is offered here. This poem has resonance for the scholarly world in terms of questioning why we keep trying to be seen as successful scholars in the eyes of others employing a publish or perish mentality rather than pursuing the true purpose of our scholarly existence. The author asks nurses, 'Why are you doing science'?
    Keywords:  Journal publishing; Knowledge distribution; Knowledge generation; Nursing; Research ethics; Scholarship; Values
  3. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 04. pii: kwab172. [Epub ahead of print]
      The digital world in which we live is changing rapidly. The changing media environment is having a direct impact on traditional forms of communication and knowledge translation in public health and epidemiology. Openly accessible digital media can be used to reach a broader and more diverse audience of trainees, scientists, and the lay public than traditional forms of scientific communication. The new digital landscape for delivering content is vast and new platforms are continuously being added. We focus on several, including Twitter and podcasting and discuss their relevance to epidemiology and science communication. We highlight three key reasons why we think epidemiologists should be engaging with these mediums: 1) science communication, 2) career advancement, 3) development of a community and public service. Other positive and negative consequences of engaging in these forms of new media are also discussed. The authors of this commentary are all engaged in social media and podcasting for scientific communication and in this manuscript, we reflect on our experience with these mediums as tools to advance the field of epidemiology.
    Keywords:  Social media; journals; podcasting; twitter
  4. J Hepatol. 2021 May 29. pii: S0168-8278(21)00355-X. [Epub ahead of print]
      BACKGROUND: Published research promoted on twitter reaches more readers. Tweets with graphics are more engaging than those without. Data are limited, however, regarding how to optimize a multimedia tweets for engagement METHODS: The "Three facts and a Story" trial is a randomized-controlled trial comparing a tweet featuring a graphical abstract to paired tweets featuring the personal motivations behind the research and a summary of the findings. Fifty-four studies published by the Journal of Hepatology were randomized at the time of online publication. The primary endpoint was assessed at 28-days from online publication with a primary outcome of full-text downloads from the website. Secondary outcomes included page views and twitter engagement including impressions, likes, and retweets.RESULTS: Overall, 31 studies received standard tweets and 23 received story tweets. Five studies were randomized to story tweets but crossed over to standard tweets for lack of author participation. Most papers tweeted were original articles (94% standard, 91% story) and clinical topics (55% standard, 61% story). Story tweets were associated with a significant increase in the number of full text downloads, 51 (34-71) versus 25 (13-41), p=0.002. There was also a non-significant increase in the number of page views. Story tweets generated an average of >1,000 more impressions than standard tweets (5,388 vs 4,280, p=0.002). Story tweets were associated with a similar number of retweets, and a non-significant increase in the number of likes.
    CONCLUSION: Tweets featuring the authors and their motivations may increase engagement with published research.
    Keywords:  Hepatology; Journal of Hepatology; Liver Disease; Social Media
  5. Indian J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan-Mar;VI(1):VI(1): 1-3
      Public health emergencies require real-time, accurate information to guide effective and timely responses. This calls for rapid and timely publication of information to promote both its scientific validity and societal value. On the other hand, rapid publication poses a potential threat to the integrity of the information published. Inaccurate or incomplete information arises due to the difficulty in conducting rigorous studies during an ongoing emergency, and the race for the fame and prestige that come with being first. The balance between the potential risks and benefits of rapid publication can be achieved by adhering to the principles of publication ethics that promote the integrity, accuracy and value of scientific literature (1). We highlight ten potential challenges related to scientific publishing and dissemination of information during this pandemic, and the underlying principles of publication ethics that could guide us.
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 May 30. pii: S0895-4356(21)00170-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of qualitative and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that a top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, mandatory statistical review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.
    Keywords:  Methodology; Reporting; Research quality
  7. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021 Jun;68(2): 105-107
      This editorial describes a number of strategies that can be employed to improve research culture and capacity in medical radiation sciences.
  8. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Jul;pii: S1877-1297(21)00082-4. [Epub ahead of print]13(7): 855-861
      BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Journal article critiques are frequently used to teach literature evaluation to pharmacy students. Peer review is one method to improve students' competency regarding journal article critiques. The objective of this manuscript is to describe implementation of electronic peer review of journal article critique drafts and explore students' intrinsic motivation to participate in the peer-review process. Influence of students' motivation to participate in peer review on their self-competence regarding journal article critiques was also explored.EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Second-year pharmacy students participated in three in-class, electronic, anonymous peer-review sessions for written journal article critique drafts. Students were invited to complete a 16-item survey instrument based on self-determination theory. Modified Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and Perceived Competence Scales assessed student interest in and perceived value of the peer-review sessions and their self-competence regarding journal article critiques.
    FINDINGS: The survey response rate was 99% (146/148). Based on a Likert scale of 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true), students demonstrated moderate interest in the peer-review sessions (M = 3.86), viewed them as valuable (M = 5.25), and had a moderate level of self-competence regarding journal article critiques (M = 3.74). Additionally, interest and perceived value of the peer-review sessions significantly influenced self-competence in completing journal article critiques.
    SUMMARY: An anonymous, electronic peer-review system provides an efficient method for in-class peer review of draft assignments. Implementing strategies to increase student interest in peer review may increase their motivation for participation and ultimately improve self-competence regarding literature evaluation.
    Keywords:  Intrinsic motivation; Journal club; Literature evaluation; Peer-review; Self-competence
  9. Account Res. 2021 Jun 03.
      We conducted this scoping review of common errors identified by editors and reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Errors includes items that a reviewer or editor might identify as needing correction. The errors were categorized by section of the manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. After screening 87 published studies, 16 papers were selected for data extraction. Of these 16 studies, the most frequently represented disciplines were Medicine (n=5), Radiology (n=2), and Psychiatry (n=2). The most reported common errors included inappropriate study design, inadequate sample size, poor statistical analysis, and unclear and inadequate description of methods. Abstracts not reflecting the content of the paper were the most frequent general common error in biomedical manuscripts. The findings of this study offer one perspective on common errors in biomedical manuscripts and might be a useful guide for novice authors.
    Keywords:  Biomedical manuscripts; Common errors; Peer review; Scoping review
  10. Curr Urol. 2021 Mar;15(1): 59-62
      Background/Aims: There is clear evidence that publishing research in an open access (OA) journal or as an OA model is associated with higher impact, in terms of number of reads and citation rates. The development of OA journals and their quality are poorly studied in the field of urology. In this study, we aim to assess the number of OA journals, their quality in terms of CiteScore, percent cited and quartiles, and their scholarly production during the period from 2011 to 2018.Methods: We obtained data about journals from, and we filtered the list for urology journals. We obtained data for all Scopus indexed journals during the period from 2011 to 2018. For each journal, we extracted the following indices: CiteScore, Citations, scholarly output, and SCImago quartiles. We analyzed the difference in quality indices between OA and non-OA urology journals.
    Results: Urology journals have increased from 66 journals in 2011 to 99 journals in 2018. The number of OA urology journals has increased from only 10 (15.2%) journals in 2011 to 33 (33.3%) journals in 2018. The number of quartile 1 (the top 25%) journals has increased from only 1 journal in 2011 to 5 journals in 2018. Non-OA urology journals had significantly higher CiteScore compared with OA journals till the year 2015, after which the mean difference in CiteScore became smaller with insignificant p-value.
    Conclusion: Number and quality of OA journals in the field of urology have increased throughout the last few years. Despite this increase, non-OA urology journals still have higher quality and output.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Journals; Open access; Scopus; Urology
  11. BMC Res Notes. 2021 May 29. 14(1): 210
      OBJECTIVE: This study describes the iterative process of selecting an infographic for use in a large, randomized trial related to trust in science, COVID-19 misinformation, and behavioral intentions for non-pharmaceutical prevenive behaviors. Five separate concepts were developed based on underlying subcomponents of 'trust in science and scientists' and were turned into infographics by media experts and digital artists. Study participants (n = 100) were recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized to five different arms. Each arm viewed a different infographic and provided both quantitative (narrative believability scale and trust in science and scientists inventory) and qualitative data to assist the research team in identifying the infographic most likely to be successful in a larger study.RESULTS: Data indicated that all infographics were perceived to be believable, with means ranging from 5.27 to 5.97 on a scale from one to seven. No iatrogenic outcomes were observed for within-group changes in trust in science. Given equivocal believability outcomes, and after examining confidence intervals for data on trust in science and then the qualitative responses, we selected infographic 3, which addressed issues of credibility and consensus by illustrating changing narratives on butter and margarine, as the best candidate for use in the full study.
    Keywords:  Infographic; Pilot test; Science; Science communication; Trust
  12. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2021 Mar;59(1): 1-2
  13. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2021 May;pii: S2530-0164(21)00079-3. [Epub ahead of print]68(5): 293-295
  14. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr. 2021 May 28. pii: S2530-0164(21)00119-1. [Epub ahead of print]
      INTRODUCTION: A case report is a scientific article describing one or more patients with unusual clinical presentations. In recent years, the number of case reports in publications has decreased. In this study, we analyze the publication of case reports in journals of Endocrinology during the years 2010, 2015 and 2019.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pubmed web was browsed for clinical journals of Endocrinology, those published in English and/or Spanish being selected, and the relevant variables analyzed.
    RESULTS: Of 84 analyzed journals, 51 accepted cases for publication, 29 did not, and 4 did so only in exceptional cases. In 2010, 11,754 articles were published, of which 709 were clinical cases (6.9% of the total); in 2015, a total of 14,594 articles of which 655 were clinical cases (5.8% of the total); and in 2019 a total of 14,110 articles, of which 472 were clinical cases (4.6% of the total). In journals demanding payment for the publishing of clinical cases, case reports represented 9% of all articles, and in free journals, 3% (P<.05).
    CONCLUSION: There has been a decline in publication of case reports in journals of Endocrinology in recent years, both in absolute and relative terms. Even though the cases described by these reports are, by definition, exceptional, the decline of their publication implies a significant loss of scientific information and clinical knowledge regarding certain pathologies.
    Keywords:  Case report; Caso clínico; Clinical investigator; Endocrinology; Endocrinología; Investigador clínico; Journal; Publicación; Publication; Revista
  15. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2021 Jun-Jul;45(5):pii: S2173-5727(21)00054-0. [Epub ahead of print]45(5): 271-279
      OBJECTIVE: To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019.DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
    SETTING: Biomedical journals publication.
    PARTICIPANTS: Rejected manuscripts in MI journal.
    MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication.
    RESULTS: The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29-3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database.
    CONCLUSIONS: The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.
    Keywords:  Artículos rechazados; Bibliometrics; Bibliometría; Factor de impacto; Gender; Género; Impact factor; Peer review; Publication rate; Rejected articles; Revisión por pares; Tasa de publicación
  16. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 ;6 669675
      According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident - the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20-50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign toward open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.
    Keywords:  Kenya; OpenScienceKE; open access; open science; preprints
  17. World Neurosurg. 2021 May 27. pii: S1878-8750(21)00762-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      BACKGROUND: The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published papers is dependent on the visibility of journals and on post-publication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised ("retractable") papers are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of "retractable" papers and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be "true" (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto.METHODS: Three journal sets were created - pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multi-disciplinary journals (NS-MD) and high-impact clinical journals (HICJ). We described a new metric - the retraction gap (RGap) - defined as the proportion of retractable papers in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable papers, RGap and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups.
    RESULTS: Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable papers was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group and 98.6% in the HICJs.
    CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.
    Keywords:  Impact Factor; journals; neurosurgery; peer review; post-publication scrutiny; rate of retractions; retraction gap; retractions
  18. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021 May-Jun;34(3):34(3): 648-660
      PURPOSE: To assess how primary care practitioners use reports of general health care (GHC) and primary care (PC) research and how well reports deliver what they need to inform clinical practice.METHODS: International, interprofessional online survey, 2019, of primary care clinicians who see patients at least half time. Respondents used frequency scales to report how often they access both GHC and PC research and how frequently reports meet needs. Free-text short comments recorded comments and suggestions.
    RESULTS: Survey yielded 252 respondents across 29 nations, 55% (121) women, including 88% (195) physicians, nurses 5% (11), and physician assistants 3% (7). Practitioners read research reports frequently but find they usually fail to meet their needs. For PC research, 33% (77) accessed original reports in academic journals weekly or daily, and 36% found reports meet needs "frequently" or "always." They access reports of GHC research slightly more often but find them somewhat less useful.
    CONCLUSIONS: PC practitioners access original research in academic journals frequently but find reports meet information needs less than half the time. PC research reflects the unique PC setting and so reporting has distinct focus, needs, and challenges. Practitioners desire improved reporting of study context, interventions, relationships, generalizability, and implementation.
    Keywords:  Biomedical Research; Evidence-Based Medicine; Family Medicine; Health Communication; Health Services Research; Medical Informatics; Primary Health Care; Publishing; Research Design; Research Report; Surveys and Questionnaires; Translational Medical Research
  19. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Jun 02.
      WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Low-quality journals are problematic for the scientific community. They may not provide thorough editorial and peer review services, and may spread low-quality information. Community pharmacists are limited in research time and resources, and are particularly at risk to access low-quality information published in some journals. This may negatively impact their professional decision-making and patient care. This study aimed to assess pharmaceutical journals readily accessible to community pharmacists and classify those journals using multiple quality criteria.METHODS: A Google search was performed using defined English and German keywords. The following quality indicators were utilized: (i) whether the journal was listed on a blacklist or whitelist, (ii) whether the journal or its publisher was a member of a publishing organization, (iii) evaluation of details on the journal's website, (iv) indexation of the journal, and (v) use of journal metrics.
    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Three hundred and eight journals were analysed; 105 (34%) were classified as "high-quality" and 203 (66%) were classified as "other". Forty-six journals (15%) were listed on a blacklist and 152 journals (49%) were listed on a whitelist. Most journals were headquartered in India (39%), followed by the USA (24%) and Europe (20%). Journals classified as "high-quality" charged higher open access article processing charges (APCs) (median APC: USD $960; interquartile range (IQR): USD $27 to USD $3,000) than journals classified as "other" (USD $100, IQR: USD $13 to USD $547), p = 0.003. Similarly, journals indexed in established databases (MEDICUS, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, or SCOPUS) charged higher APCs (median APC: USD $600, IQR: USD $4 to USD $2,500) than journals indexed in non-standard databases (median APC: USD $100, IQR: USD $41 to USD $581), p = 0.001.
    WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The results indicate that community pharmacists are at risk of accessing journals of questionable quality. Patient care may be negatively impacted by community pharmacists basing their professional decisions on evidence gained from some sources of lower quality. Community pharmacists and other pharmacists and researchers can use the tools and quality indicators provided in this study to preliminarily determine the quality and reliability of a journal to assist their professional decision-making and patient care.
    Keywords:  evidence-based practice; pharmaceutical care; pharmacist consultation; pharmacists; pharmacy; pharmacy practice
  20. J Perioper Pract. 2021 Jun;31(6): 230-233
      This article provides an overview of writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals. While the main focus is on writing a research article, it also provides guidance on factors influencing journal selection, including journal scope, intended audience for the findings, open access requirements, and journal citation metrics. Finally, it covers the standard content of a scientific journal article, providing general advice and guidance regarding the information researchers would typically include in their published papers.
    Keywords:  Academic journals; Journal selection; Libraries; Research support; Writing for publication
  21. HNO. 2021 Jun 01.
      In 1864, the worldwide oldest journal in an area of the later established specialty of otorhinolaryngology was founded as the German Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde ("Archive of Otology") by its first editors Anton von Tröltsch (Würzburg), Adam Politzer (Vienna), and Hermann Schwartze (Halle/S.). Ear, nose, and throat (ENT) topics had previously been published in universal medical journals. In the next few decades, numerous journals in the field of ENT were founded, the eventful history of which is presented up to the present day. Particular attention is paid to the historical and personal context of the editors of newly founded magazines and their publishers. The journal landscape, which was changing through acquisitions and mergers of publishers, is described in detail. The merging of the specialties of otology and laryngo-rhinology in Germany, which lasted until the 1920s, had a profound influence on journal titles and contents. An attempt is made to present the most important titles in their historical development. All the important editors of the German ENT journals are mentioned, although it was not possible to include the names of the editors of the current journals, which are becoming more and more numerous. One chapter deals exclusively with the development of journal publishers. The inserted tables and figures will help to resolve some of the confusion caused by repeated similar names of journals by showing their historical development.
    Keywords:  Information dissemination; Journals as topic; Medical journalism; Scholarly Communication; Serial publications
  22. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021 ;pii: S0034-71672021000200304. [Epub ahead of print]74(2): e20190378
      OBJECTIVES: to characterize publications about palliative care and communication, with an emphasis on the approaches addressed, disseminated in online journals.METHODS: it is a scope review, in which the mnemonic strategy Problem, Concept and Context was used, based on database research. The sample consisted of 86 publications.
    RESULTS: most publications were written in the English language, published in the journal BMC Palliative Care, and with level of evidence IV. As for the approaches approached, the following stand out: Importance of communication in palliative care; Breaking the bad news in palliative care; Training professionals/staff to communicate in palliative care; and Communication strategies in palliative care.
    FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: the review made it possible to map a significant number of publications on palliative care and communication. It is recommended to produce new studies with better scientific evidence that guide the assistance of health professionals.
  23. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021 May-Jun;34(3):34(3): 477-480
      The first repository of research in family medicine in the United States was the Journal of Family Practice (JFP) ( Much of the original development, debates about family medicine and primary care, and subsequent discoveries reside in JFP issues from 1974 to 1999. An archive of these issues is now available online after being somewhat lost for several years. It is a treasure-trove of information that reveals the evolution of family medicine as a discipline and remains pertinent to the current challenges and aspiration of family medicine and primary care. Investigators can benefit from checking this archive to build from prior work and avoid unnecessarily starting over.
    Keywords:  Family Medicine; Knowledge Translation; Primary Health Care; Publications; Scholarly Publishing