Journal reading patterns and preferences of pediatricians.
(57/149)
PURPOSE: To describe the journal reading patterns of pediatrician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and compare results to similar surveys of medical faculty and physicians. The research also explored factors that might influence changes in reading patterns in the future, such as adoption of PDA technology. METHODOLOGY: A random sample of 2,000 AAP members was drawn from the AAP membership list, with paper surveys distributed in mid-2004. SETTINGS/SUBJECTS: Six hundred sixty-six pediatrician AAP members participated in a survey of reading behavior, with a total of 1,351 members answering some questions about technology use. RESULTS: The hypotheses that pediatricians read many journal articles each month, read each article on average quite quickly, read heavily from personal subscriptions, read from both print and electronic journals, and read for many purposes were all supported. Pediatricians read journal articles primarily for current awareness and most often rely on quick reading from print journals for current awareness. Reading for research, writing, and presentations are more likely from library-provided electronic journals. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Convenience and purpose of reading are key factors that explain reading patterns of pediatricians. Print personal subscriptions are convenient for current awareness reading, while electronic journals systems are convenient for reading for research because they provide access to a broader range of journals. Publishers and librarians must understand the purposes and patterns of reading to design appropriate journals and services. Pediatricians read many current articles very quickly and from many different locations. Pediatricians under the age of thirty-five are more likely to use PDAs, suggesting that articles delivered to a handheld device might be accepted as convenient in the future. (+info)
Peer assessment of journal quality in clinical neurology.
(58/149)
OBJECTIVE: To explore journal quality as perceived by clinicians and researchers in clinical neurology. METHODS: A survey was conducted from August 2003 to January 2004. Ratings for 41 selected clinical neurology journals were obtained from 254 members of the World Federation of Neurology (1,500 solicited; response rate 17%). Participants provided demographic information and rated each journal on a 5-point Likert scale. Average ratings for all journals were compared with the ISI's journal impact factors. Ratings for each journal were also compared across geographic regions and respondent publication productivity. RESULTS: The top 5 journals were rated much more highly than the others, with mean ratings greater than 4. Mean journal ratings were highly correlated with journal impact factors (r = 0.67). Most of the top 10 journal ratings were consistent across the subgroups of geographic regions and journal paper productivity. However, significant differences among the different geographical regions and respondent productivity groups were also found for a few journals. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide valuable insight on how neurological experts perceive journals in clinical neurology. These results will likely aid researchers and clinicians in identifying potentially desirable research outlets and indicate journal status for editors. Likewise, biomedical librarians may use these results for serials collection development. (+info)
Corrections in an electronic environment.
(59/149)
The need to publish corrections to scientific articles, and occasionally to retract them, has been recognized for decades. However very little emphasis has been attached to how this is done, provided that the retraction or correction is accessible. We are considering a policy to directly correct our online publications. (+info)
Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study.
(60/149)
BACKGROUND: The CONSORT statement specifies the need for a balanced presentation of both benefits and harms of medical interventions in trial reports. However, invitations to screening and newspaper articles often emphasize benefits and downplay or omit harms, and it is known that scientific articles can be influenced by conflicts of interest. We wanted to determine if a similar imbalance occurs in scientific articles on mammography screening and if it is related to author affiliation. METHODS: We searched PubMed in April 2005 for articles on mammography screening that mentioned a benefit or a harm and that were published in 2004 in English. Data extraction was performed by three independent investigators, two unblinded and one blinded for article contents, and author names and affiliation, as appropriate. The extracted data were compared and discrepancies resolved by two investigators in a combined analysis. We defined three groups of authors: (1) authors in specialties unrelated to mammography screening, (2) authors in screening-affiliated specialties (radiology or breast cancer surgery) who were not working with screening, or authors funded by cancer charities, and (3) authors (at least one) working directly with mammography screening programmes. We used a data extraction sheet with 17 items described as important benefits and harms in the 2002 WHO/IARC-report on breast cancer screening. RESULTS: We identified 854 articles, and 143 were eligible for the study. Most were original research. Benefits were mentioned more often than harms (96% vs 62%, P < 0.001). Fifty-five (38%) articles mentioned only benefits, whereas seven (5%) mentioned only harms (P < 0.001). Overdiagnosis was mentioned in 35 articles (24%), but was more often downplayed or rejected in articles that had authors working with screening, (6/15; 40%) compared with authors affiliated by specialty or funding (1/6; 17%), or authors unrelated with screening (1/14; 7%) (P = 0.03). Benefits in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality were mentioned in 109 (76%) articles, and was more often provided as a relative risk reduction than an absolute risk reduction, where quantified (45 articles (31%) versus 6 articles (3%) (P < 0.001)). CONCLUSION: Scientific articles tend to emphasize the major benefits of mammography screening over its major harms. This imbalance is related to the authors' affiliation. (+info)
Publishing science in the digital age. The case of Neurocirugia.
(61/149)
Neurocirugia publishes a printed edition for subscribers, and also an electronic edition which is available online free of charge. The coexistence of these two formats raises some issues regarding their justification and their future evolution, e.g. why does a subscription- based journal offer free online access? Would it be wise to charge for -or somewhat limit- the electronic access to the Journal? How is the Internet changing the benefits to society that the Journal provides? Will the printed and the electronic edition of the Journal continue to coexist? This paper provides some answers and reflections on these questions. Many of our considerations are based on ideas that have been presented and discussed in a series of editorials in Neurocirugia (see Neurocirugia 17 (2), 2006); in this paper we reconsider, complement, and rearrange previous arguments to address the issues mentioned above. Based on an analysis of economic costs and of all the stakeholders involved (authors, readers, the Journal, the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery, and society as a whole), we justify the present coexistence of the two publishing formats, defend free online access, and provide our view on the expected evolution of the Journal. While we focus primarily on Neurocirugia, most of our reflections can be carried over to other scientific journals. (+info)
Geography of Africa biomedical publications: an analysis of 1996-2005 PubMed papers.
(62/149)
BACKGROUND: Scientific publications play an important role in scientific process providing a key linkage between knowledge production and use. Scientific publishing activity worldwide over the past decades shows that most countries in Africa have low levels of publication. We sought to examine trends and contribution of different Africa subregions and individual countries as represented by the articles indexed by PubMed between 1996 and 2005. RESULTS: Research production in Africa is highly skewed; South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria make up a striking 60% of the total number of articles indexed by PubMed between 1996 and 2005. When adjusted for population size smaller countries, such as The Gambia, Gabon and Botswana, were more productive than Nigeria and Kenya. The Gambia and Eritrea had better records when total production was adjusted for gross domestic product. The contribution of Africa to global research production was persistently low through the period studied. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that most populous and rich countries (such as South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria) have correspondingly higher research production; but smaller countries can be productive. We noted continuous increases and reassuring trends in the production of research articles from all African subregions during the period 1996 - 2005. However, contribution of Africa to global research production was limited. (+info)
Public health citation patterns: an analysis of the American Journal of Public Health, 2003-2005.
(63/149)
OBJECTIVES: The research sought to determine the publication types cited most often in public health as well as the most heavily cited journal titles. METHODS: From a pool of 33,449 citations in 934 articles published in the 2003-2005 issues of American Journal of Public Health, 2 random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,034) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,016) from the citations to journal articles. For each sampled citation, investigators noted publication type, publication date, uniform resource locator (URL) citation (yes/no), and, for the journal article sample, journal titles. The cited journal titles were analyzed using Bradford zones. RESULTS: The majority of cited items from the overall sample of 1,034 items were journal articles (64.4%, n = 666), followed by government documents (n = 130), books (n = 122), and miscellaneous sources (n = 116). Publication date ranged from 1826-2005 (mean = 1995, mode = 2002). Most cited items were between 0 and 5 years old (50.3%, n = 512). In the sample of 1,016 journal article citations, a total of 387 journal titles were cited. DISCUSSION: Analysis of cited material types revealed results similar to citation analyses in specific public health disciplines, including use of materials from a wide range of disciplines, reliance on miscellaneous and government documents, and need for older publications. (+info)
Origins of the Canadian school of surgery.
(64/149)
BACKGROUND: Since its inception 50 years ago, the Canadian Journal of Surgery has published articles under the banner "History of Canadian Surgery." Because no comprehensive history of surgery in this country has yet been written, these articles may provide its basis. METHOD: The Canadian Journal of Surgery was searched from October 1957 to August 2007 for articles on the practice of surgery in Canada before 1957. Articles regarding the development of surgery in provinces, universities, hospitals and surgical specialty societies were included, as well as biographies and obituaries of surgeons. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles dealing with the lives of 57 Canadian surgeons were located. Three periods of Canadian surgery were covered: the French regime (1535-1759), the transition period (1759-1870) and the early modern period (1870-1945). The review shows that persistent efforts were made in Canada to develop surgical education and to regulate the practice of surgery. Isolation forced a spirit of adaptability that led to innovation and progress. CONCLUSION: The practice of surgery in Canada today can be traced back to contributions made by pioneering surgeons over the entire history of modern Canada. An archive of materials related to the history of surgery in Canada is being created at www.historyofsurgery.ca to facilitate further research. (+info)