Scope and geographical distribution of African medical journals active in 2005.

OBJECTIVES: To identify all African medical journals actively publishing in 2005, and to create a geodatabase of these to evaluate and monitor future journal activity. DESIGN: A search was done for relevant African medical journals on electronic databases, library catalogues and internet sites, and a list was compiled of active journals. A survey was conducted via questionnaire of editors of all listed African medical journals defined as having an editorial base on the continent. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight African medical journals were identified, published in 33 countries. One hundred and fifty-three editors were surveyed via email, post and/or fax. There was a 39% response rate from editors based in 17 countries. Fifty-one journals were published in English, 7 in French and 1 in Portuguese. Most journals were owned by an association or a society and were funded from a combination of sources. Journals covered general medical and specialist medical interest equally. Most (41 of 59 journals) had a circulation below 1 000, and most (52/59) published 4 or fewer issues a year. Almost all the journals included original research, and articles were peer reviewed. Few were indexed on Medline (N = 18) and EMBASE (N = 10). Plotting journal location using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software provided a snapshot view of current journal activity. CONCLUSIONS: This study is likely to represent the most comprehensive list of current African medical journals. It confirms growth in African health care research and journal activity on the continent. Limited inclusion in international databases and accessibility to African researchers remain challenges in achieving publication of high-quality African research in high-quality African journals.     

Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?

Background contextIt is commonly believed that the peer-review process is reliable and consistent. It appears, however, that depending on the journal and the editorial leadership, agreement by reviewers on whether to publish submitted articles varies widely; from substantial to slightly greater than one would expect with random assignments of acceptance or rejection.PurposeThe purpose was to assess peer-review agreement in major spine journals.Study design/SettingThis study is for the assessment of reviewer agreement.SamplesThe study consisted of consecutive reviews of 200 submitted articles.Outcome measuresAgreement via Kappa statistics.MethodsGroup A consisted of 200 consecutive article reviews for which the senior author was involved in the review or editorial process over the past 8 years for two major spine journals. Reviewers' recommendations were placed into one of two groups: accept/minimal revisions or major revision/reject. Standard Kappa statistics were used to assess reviewer agreement. Group B consisted of a similar set, but with wholly randomly generated recommendations. Again, Kappa statistics were used.ResultsKappa for Group A was 0.155 with a range of 0.017 to 0.294 at 95% confidence interval and agreement at 0.6; suggesting “slight” reviewer agreement. Kappa for Group B behaved as expected, with “poor” agreement.ConclusionsAgreement regarding peer-review recommendations for publication in spine journals appears to be better than would be expected in the random situation; but still only “slight.” This suggests that review methodology varies considerably among reviewers and that further study should be undertaken to determine “ideal” agreement levels and ways to increase review consistency/quality commensurate with the editorial missions of the journals.     

Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds,Rather Than Gatekeepers

The journals of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research [JBMR] and its sister journal JBMR Plus) recognize peer review, whether pre- or post-publication, as an essential guard of scientific integrity and rigor that shapes academic discourse in our field. In this Perspective, we present a vision and philosophy of peer review in a rapidly changing publishing landscape. We emphasize the importance of journal peer reviewers as active players in shaping collegial behavior in the musculoskeletal research community and provide information about benefits and resources available for reviewers and reviewers-in-training. Publishing is becoming increasingly transparent, bringing benefits to authors, to reviewers, and to the scientific community at large. We discuss new initiatives such as transparent peer review and preprint servers, the ways they are changing scientific publishing, and how JBMR is responding to broaden the impact of musculoskeletal research. We emphasize the need to change any perception of peer reviewers as gatekeepers to viewing them as shepherds, who partner with authors and editors in the publishing endeavor. Promoting access, transparency, and collegiality in the way we assess science in our community will elevate its quality, clarify its communication, and increase its societal impact. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).     

Report from the editorial office

First of all, we wish all our readers, reviewers, editorialboard members and collaborators a very happy new year and allthe best for 2007. We hope that the coming year will prove tobe successful for every one of you. This editorial briefly describes some important changes we planto make to NDT. At a ‘brainstorming’ meeting inNovember that was attended by many of our editors, our publisherOxford University Press (OUP) and the council of the EDTA/ERA,current and future issues affecting medical journals in generaland NDT in particular were discussed. The most important ofthese are the growing number of submissions, the impact factorof the journal,     

Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Industry Employees as Medical Research Publication Authors

As an editorial policy, medical device and pharmaceutical industry employees are generally permitted to publish original scientific research in Arthroscopy journal but are not permitted to publish systematic reviews. All authors complete the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, which are thoughtfully considered by our reviewers and editors and readers. In accord with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, we believe that “manufacturers of medical devices, biologics, drugs, and other items use(d) in the care of the patient…play an important role in…the development of new technologies. This collaborative effort ensures that patients have the best outcomes through the invention and testing of new technology, research, and evaluation of existing technology.” Our peer-review process mitigates against bias including but not limited to commercial bias in the interpretation of scientific research data. In the end, our goal is to publish the best science, and as above, industry plays “an important role in…(t)his collaborative effort.”     

Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels. METHODS: Information was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose. RESULTS: Of the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology.     

An analysis of citations of publications in anaesthesia journals

Which journals cite work published in anaesthetic journals is of potential interest to authors, editors and publishers. We analysed citations made in 2017–2018 for articles, reviews, editorials and letters published by 12 anaesthetic journals in 2016, using the Web of Science™ citation index platform. We analysed 12,544 citations made for 3518 items. Citations were most often made by specialist anaesthesia journals and critical care journals, and occurred most commonly in articles, followed by reviews, editorials and letters. The median (IQR [range]) number of citations made per item was 3.3 (2.6–4.1 [1.6–5.1]). The median (IQR [range]) number of journals that cited the 12 source journals was 302 (236–449 [139–671]). The median (IQR [range]) proportion of citations made by the same journal that published the items (i.e. ‘self-citations’) was 15% (11–17% [5–32%]). There were 1305/1932 (68%) citations made by North American journals for items published in North American journals and 1712/2063 (83%) citations made by European journals for items published in European journals, p < 0.0001. Our analysis may inform authors, editors and publishers where to submit work, what editorial policy to pursue and what journal strategy to follow, respectively.     

医学期刊编辑职业倦怠影响因素分析

目的 通过人口变量学指标分析,探讨影响医学期刊编辑职业倦怠的可能因素.方法 2020年7月-8月,选取国内医学期刊编辑为调研对象,采用职业倦怠量表并以电子问卷的形式进行问卷调查.共回收有效问卷136份.其中男性15例(11.0％),女性121例(89.0％).选取性别、工作年限、文化程度、年龄、薪酬等指标进行对比.采用...     

National bias in citations in urology journals: parochialism or availability?

OBJECTIVE: To determine any bias by authors of different nationalities in their citation rate of selected urological journals in papers published in the British Journal of Urology and the Journal of Urology. METHODS: Using a simple computer program and text files of accepted reports in the BJU, or those available on CD-ROM from J Urol, 212 recent papers in the BJU and 111 from J Urol were analysed to determine the number of citations to four major urological journals (BJU, J Urol, Eur Urol and Urology). The frequencies of citations to these journals were then compared with the national origin of the author(s), grouped as UK, Europe, North America and Other. RESULTS: In both the BJU and J Urol the citation rates of the selected journals differed significantly among authors from different regions. In BJU papers, the citation rate of the BJU was highest by UK authors and their citation rate of J Urol was amongst the lowest of the rates for J Urol. The highest citation rate for J Urol was that by European authors. American authors cited the BJU least, citing the J Urol about five times more often than they cited the BJU. Of the papers in the J Urol sample, over 60% were from American authors, with only four from UK authors; thus the UK group was not analysed separately but included in the European group. The mean citation rate of J Urol was highest in papers by American authors, at about 14 times that for citations to the BJU. The citation rates for the other two journals were not significantly different with nationality or journal, but were generally much lower in J Urol than in the BJU. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in citation rates both with authors' nationality and between journals. Citation rates may be influenced by journal accessibility, perceived journal 'prestige' (impact factor) or national bias. Authors, editors and reviewers should be aware of this potential bias in citation habits. Authors should strive to conduct exhaustive searches using electronic methods, so that all relevant papers are assessed, regardless of their origin.     

Geographic origin of publications in surgical journals

BACKGROUND: Publications in peer-reviewed journals are the main determinants of research rating and funding. The present study assesses worldwide scientific contributions in the field of surgical research. METHODS: Fifteen major surgical journals were selected for a bibliometric search in Medline/PubMed over a 6-year period (2000-2005). All articles with abstracts were totalled according to country of corresponding author. Publications (total and corrected for population size) and journal impact factor were assessed according to country. RESULTS: A total of 18,717 articles were identified. Fifteen countries generated 88.8 per cent of these: the USA produced 42.1 per cent, Japan 9.1 per cent and the UK 7.6 per cent. When corrected for population size, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland topped the ranking; the USA was sixth. Ireland and Switzerland scored the highest mean impact factor. CONCLUSION: The USA is the most productive country in terms of absolute number of surgical publications in the selected journals. However, when population size is taken into consideration, certain smaller European countries were more prolific.     

A comparison of Internet usage between two residency programs in the United Kingdom and the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To survey the pattern of use and availability of the Internet among anesthesia residents. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. SETTING: University hospital. MEASUREMENTS: A postal questionnaire of Internet attitudes and usage was sent to trainees in Anesthesiology in two training programs: the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (UNM) and the North West Regional Health Authority, Manchester, UK (NWR). A repeat questionnaire was sent to nonresponders after 4 weeks. Telephone interviews were conducted with hospital administration to determine availability and cost of the Internet. MAIN RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (82/122) from the NWR and 83% (25/31) from UNM. Compared with NWR, residents at UNM used the Internet longer for general (median 3 vs. 2 yrs; p < 0.001) and medical (median 2 vs. 1.2 yrs; p < 0.001) purposes. All (31/31) UNM trainees and 73% (89/122) of NWR trainees had Internet access. More NWR trainees who had Internet access at work (60/61; 98%) used it for medically related purposes than those without work access (17/21, 81%; p < 0.001). More UNM trainees (19/25; 76%) accessed web sites other than those of official national organizations than did NWR trainees (40/82, 49%; p = 0.046). Approximately 75% of all trainees access web sites of the Association of Anesthetists and Royal College of Anesthetists (in the NWR) the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and American Board of Anesthesiology (in UNM) and online journals. The most popular sites were GASNET (Global Anesthesiology Server Network; NWR) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists; UNM). Both UNM and NWR trainees perceived the Internet as supplying useful and accurate information. CONCLUSIONS: If the reported survey results are representative of Internet use among anesthesia residents in the United States and UK, Internet access at work is associated with greater Internet use for medical purposes, perhaps in part because residents perceive it to be a convenient and accurate resource.     

MRI of the Breast: Does the Internet Accurately Report its Beneficial Uses and Limitations?

Abstract:  As consumer use of the Internet for medical information grows, continuing evaluation of the medical content on the Internet is needed. We evaluated Internet sites describing breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an emerging technology tool in breast cancer diagnosis and screening. We searched Google for sites describing breast MRI and abstracted the affiliation, content, media type, readability, and quality of 90 most popular unique sites. Over half (56%) of the sites were commercially sponsored. The content varied by site and included medical and procedural facts, information about clinical trials, grants and journal articles, as well as human interest stories. Most (82%) sites described potentially beneficial uses of breast MRI, such as further evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancers (58%); screening women at high risk for breast cancer (54%); evaluation of abnormal breast findings (48%); screening women with dense breasts (48%) or implants (27%); and surveillance for breast cancer recurrences (24%). Approximately half (56%) of the sites described the limitations of breast MRI, most commonly false positive findings (44%) and costs (24%). Website quality, including the display of contact information, sponsorship, currency of information, authorship, and references varied. The reading level was close to high school graduate. Internet sites describing breast MRI were mostly commercially sponsored, more often described the potential beneficial uses of the procedure than its limitations, and were of variable quality and high reading level. With the lack of enforceable standards for display of medical information on the Internet, providers should encourage patients to direct their searches to the most credible sites.     

Level of evidence of clinical spinal research and its correlation with journal impact factor

BackgroundOver the past two decades, there has been a growing recognition and emphasis on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The level of evidence (LOE) is used to classify clinical studies based on their quality and design. To compare the quality of scientific journals, the impact factor (IF) is the most widely used ranking measure. However, the calculation of IF is not directly dependent on the quality or LOE of clinical articles published in a journal.PurposeThe primary aim of this study was to evaluate the current LOE for clinical research in leading spinal journals and assess the relationship between LOE and IF. We hypothesized that most clinical research would provide level IV evidence, and that a positive correlation would exist between the proportion of high LOE articles and the journal IF.Study designA systematic review of all the articles in five general spinal journals was undertaken during 2010.SampleAll online articles in The Spine Journal, Spine, European Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques during 2010, as well as supplements were included.Outcome measureThe LOE for each clinical study was assessed using guidelines produced by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.MethodsTwo reviewers independently assessed all articles.ResultsOverall 703 articles were suitable for LOE grading. Of these, 4.7% provided level I evidence, 23.2% level II, 12.5% level III, and 59.6% level IV. There was a significant association between LOE and type of study (p<.001); articles on therapeutic studies had the largest proportion (71.8%) of level IV evidence. There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of level I and II evidence and the journal impact factor (ρ=0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.99; p=.037).ConclusionSpinal surgery journals with a higher IF contain a larger proportion of studies with high LOE, however most clinical articles provide level IV evidence of which the highest proportion are therapeutic studies. Clinicians, researchers, and journal editors should work hand in hand to enhance evidence-based practice in spinal care.     

Physicians and Medical Researchers Are Evidence-based Altruistic

Volunteerism is actively seeking opportunities to assist others in need and sustaining these commitments at considerable personal cost. Altruism is the fact of caring about the needs of others and being helpful, even if one derives no personal benefit. As evidenced by medical and scientific research journal readers, reviewers, editors, authors, and leaders—physicians and medical researchers are evidence-based altruistic. While this is not unique to our profession, to care for others is the very essence of what we do.     

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Editorial

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access, online journal that aims to expeditiously publish clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues in different cultural communities. It provides a platform for exchanges of new clinical and scientific information in the most precise and expeditious way to achieve dissemination of information and cross-fertilization of ideas. The open access nature of this journal allows articles to be universally and freely accessible via the Internet. This ensures a rapid and efficient communication of research findings. The journal welcomes all types of articles related to musculoskeletal issues. Its timely publication and high visibility are the two most important features that make this journal different from other traditional journals in the orthopaedic field.