Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. (17/243)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools deployed in the pursuit of evidence-based practice. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (JAC) welcomes the submission of these types of article; however, it is crucial that these studies are conducted properly. In this article we outline the advantages and limitations inherent in these approaches, and the features that we look for when this type of article is submitted to JAC.  (+info)

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy: optional open access and not-for-profit. (18/243)

All JAC articles are currently freely accessible 12 months after publication, a form of deferred open access. From 2006, JAC will offer the option of author-pays open access, so that individual articles can be made open access immediately upon publication. In addition, JAC will allow the deposition by authors of post-prints of the accepted version of their article as encouraged by granting bodies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others. We are adopting such policies to support our authors who must comply with the requirements of their funding bodies and institutions, however, we do not believe that deposition of the post-print form of the article is the most useful step for the progression of research, as we shall note in this article. These changes will enable JAC to deliver the potential for expanded access to articles at a rate determined by the desire among the author community to do so, but without compromising the long-term viability of JAC and the services we offer.  (+info)

Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. (19/243)

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial registration allows interested parties to obtain information about ongoing and completed trials, but there are few data indicating the quality of the information provided during the registration process. We used information in the publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov database to describe patterns of trial registration before and after the implementation by journal editors of a new policy requiring registration as a prerequisite for publication. METHODS: We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov records to determine patterns of completion of the "Intervention Name" and "Primary Outcome Measure" data fields for trials registered on May 20 and October 11, 2005, and for trials registered during the interval between these two dates, inclusively. RESULTS: During the interval studied, the number of registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov increased by 73 percent from 13,153 to 22,714. The percentage of interventional trials registered by industry with nonspecific Intervention Name entries (attributable to four drug companies) decreased from 10 percent to 2 percent; all other industry and nonindustry records contained specific entries in this field. Of the 2670 studies registered by industry between the two dates, 76 percent provided information in the Primary Outcome Measure field, although these entries varied markedly in their degree of specificity. In the remaining 24 percent of the records, this field was blank. CONCLUSIONS: During the summer of 2005, there were large increases in the number of clinical trial registrations. Overall, the data contained in records were more complete in October than they were in May, but there still is room for substantial improvement.  (+info)

Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: survey of authors. (20/243)

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether free access to research articles on bmj.com is an important factor in authors' decisions on whether to submit to the BMJ, whether the introduction of access controls to part of the BMJ's content has influenced authors' perceptions of the journal, and whether the introduction of further access controls would influence authors' perceptions. DESIGN: Cross sectional electronic survey. PARTICIPANTS: Authors of research articles published in the BMJ. RESULTS: 211/415 (51%) eligible authors responded. Three quarters (159/211) said the fact that all readers would have free access to their paper on bmj.com was very important or important to their decision to submit to the BMJ. Over half (111/211) said closure of free access to research articles would make them slightly less likely to submit research articles to the BMJ in the future, 14% (29/211) said they would be much less likely to submit, and 34% (71/211) said it would not influence their decision. Authors were equally divided in their opinion as to whether the closure of access to parts of the journal since January 2005 had affected their view of the BMJ; 40% (84/211) said it had, 38% (80/211) said it had not. In contrast, 67% (141/211) said their view of the BMJ would change if it closed access to research articles. Authors' comments largely focused on disappointment with such a regressive step in the era of open access publishing, loss of a distinctive feature of the BMJ, a perceived reduction in the journal's usefulness as a resource and global influence, restricted readership, less attractive to publish in, and the negative impact on the journal's image. CONCLUSIONS: Authors value free access to research articles and consider this an important factor in deciding whether to submit to the BMJ. Closing access to research articles would have a negative effect on authors' perceptions of the journal and their likeliness to submit.  (+info)

Developing a virtual community for health sciences library book selection: Doody's Core Titles. (21/243)

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe Doody's Core Titles in the Health Sciences as a new selection guide and a virtual community based on an effective use of online systems and to describe its potential impact on library collection development. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/RESOURCES: The setting is the availability of health sciences selection guides. Participants include Doody Enterprise staff, Doody's Library Board of Advisors, content specialists, and library selectors. Resources include the online system used to create Doody's Core Titles along with references to complementary databases. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Doody's Core Titles is described and discussed in relation to the literature of selection guides, especially in comparison to the Brandon/Hill selected lists that were published from 1965 to 2003. Doody's Core Titles seeks to fill the vacuum created when the Brandon/Hill lists ceased publication. Doody's Core Titles is a unique selection guide based on its method of creating an online community of experts to identify and score a core list of titles in 119 health sciences specialties and disciplines. RESULTS/OUTCOME: The result is a new selection guide, now available annually, that will aid health sciences librarians in identifying core titles for local collections. EVALUATION METHOD: Doody's Core Titles organizes the evaluation of core titles that are identified and recommended by content specialists associated with Doody's Book Review Service and library selectors. A scoring mechanism is used to create the selection of core titles, similar to the star rating system employed in other Doody Enterprise products and services.  (+info)

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine - achievements and perspectives. (22/243)

Last summer we officially launched the Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, published by BioMedCentral, with the aim of establishing a serious, peer-reviewed, open-access online journal that focuses on the multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary fields of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, drawing on approaches and methods from both the social and biological sciences. The strong start vindicates the widely held belief that the journal responds to a real need within the research community. The success of the journal has been most gratifying. The steady influx of submissions of high scientific standards illustrates the strong demand for a dynamic, proactive, and open-minded scientific journal in these research areas. Our aim has been to dedicate JEE to the "scientific communities" worldwide, particularly those in the developing countries.  (+info)

Reporting ethical protections in physical therapy research. (23/243)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Efforts to make physical therapy more evidence based have increased demand for human participants, raising concerns for their safety and welfare. This study examined how often research articles in physical therapy journals report basic ethical protections. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective audit of research articles in 6 physical therapy journals between 1996 and 2001. RESULTS: Of 806 articles reviewed, 48% documented both research ethics committee approval and informed consent. Articles reporting clinical interventions had the highest reported rate (64%) of both protections. Articles reporting qualitative methods, chart reviews, and case reports had the lowest rates of documentation of both requirements: 30%, 17%, and 11%, respectively. Reported rates of both requirements in vulnerable populations were 55% for children, 48% for students, and 33% for employees. Twenty-six percent of articles included confidentiality assurances. Case reports were most likely and chart reviews were least likely to mention confidentiality: 88% and 8%, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There is no uniform editorial policy among physical therapy journals for reporting basic ethical requirements. Physical therapy journals should standardize ethical protections and make documentation of compliance a prerequisite of publication.  (+info)

Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician - types and timelines. (24/243)

BACKGROUND: Articles published in the research section of Australian Family Physician (AFP) are subject to an editorial process comprising several stages. METHOD: Timelines tracking the movement of each research manuscript submitted to AFP from 2002-2004 through all stages of the editorial process were constructed. Of 179 papers, 130 had sufficiently progressed to be included in this study. Manuscripts were grouped by subject matter into eight categories. RESULTS: Waiting for authors' responses to editorial feedback (with reviewers' reports) was the greatest cause of delay to AFP editorial processes. Peer reviewers took 43 (SD: 102) days to return their report. Authors took 67 (SD: 76) days to resubmit their paper following initial feedback, and a further 48 (SD: 79) days after it had been edited. Mean accumulated time between receipt of a manuscript by AFP and sending it to peer review was 15 days. Once the editorial process was completed, articles were usually published within 3 months. Most research (64%) was on the topic of health services research rather than clinical research (36%). The most common research method was observational (78%) rather than experimental (22%). DISCUSSION: There is less clinical research submitted to AFP than expected for a clinical discipline. Authors and reviewers cause the most delay in manuscripts' passage through the editorial process.  (+info)