Publication activity of chief and consultant general/visceral surgeons in German university hospitals-a ten-year analysis

PURPOSE

The publication activity of 38 German general/visceral surgery university departments, documented by first or last authorship from staff surgeons (chief and consultants), was evaluated.

METHODS

The observation period extended from 2007 to 2017 and all PubMed-listed publications were considered. Impact factor (IF) was evaluated through the publishing journal's 5-year IF in 2016, as was the IF for each individual publication. Ranking was expressed in quartiles.

RESULTS

The staff surgeons of the 38 departments comprised 442 surgeons, of which only 351 (79.4%) were active as first or last authors. Four thousand six hundred and ninety-nine publications published in 702 journals were recorded. The four leading departments in publication number published as much as the last 20 departments (1330 vs. 1336 publications, respectively). The mean of the first (most active) department quartile was 19.6 publications, the second 15.4, the third 11.0, and the last quartile 7.6 per publishing surgeon. The total cumulative impact factor was 14,130. When examining the mean number of publications per publishing surgeons per the 10 year period, the mean of the first quartile was 57.9 cumulative IF, the second 45.0, the third 29.5, and the fourth quartile 17.1. With 352 (7.5%) publications, the most frequently used journal was Chirurg, followed by Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery with 274 (5.8%) publications. Pancreas-related topics led in terms of publication number and IF generated per individual publication.

CONCLUSION

A significant difference in publication performance of individual departments was apparent that cannot be explained by staff number. This indicates that there are as yet unknown factors responsible for minor publication activity in many university departments.

Conference abstracts-what gets published, when, and from where?

BACKGROUND

Scientific meetings provide a platform for disseminating new research. Abstracts presented at these meetings are frequently published as full-length papers in peer-reviewed journals. The primary aims of this study were to determine the publication rate and time to publication of abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and World Federation of Orthodontists (WFO) congresses in 2015. The secondary aim was to identify factors predicting the publication of abstracts.

METHODS

The congress abstracts were identified from the congress report or organizers. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed to identify papers based on the abstracts identified. Abstract titles, first and last authors' last name, and keywords were used to identify whether an abstract resulted in a publication. Abstracts published as full-length articles were then analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 208 abstracts were identified, of which 46.6% were published as full-length articles. The median time to publication was 17 months after the EOS congress, and 8.5 months after the WFO congress. Abstracts presented orally were more likely to be published than those presented as posters. Abstracts from Europe were more likely to result in publication. The subject and setting of the study were poor predictors of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the abstracts presented at the EOS and WFO congresses in 2015 led to full publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The mode of presentation and the region of origin of the research were good predictors of publication.

Scientific publication trends of emergency department of International Federation for Emergency Medicine members, 2009 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Emergency medicine (EM) is a rapidly developing specialty worldwide. The scientific publications trend is one of the parameters to evaluate national EM developmental milestones. This study was performed to analyze the publication trends from emergency departments (EDs) of International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) full member countries from 2009 to 2018.

METHODS

All data were retrieved from the SciVerse Scopus database. IFEM full member countries where EM was recognized as a specialty before 2009 and annual publication numbers exceeded 12 in 2018 were included. The EM journals list was adopted from the 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Publications with the first author affiliated with EDs were divided into EM or non-EM journal groups according to the publishing journal. The slope (β) of the linear regression was used to assess the trends of publication numbers. The correlation between the 2009 publication number and the trend of publication between 2009 and 2018 was measured by Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). The correlation between funding numbers and publication numbers was analyzed by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r_s).

RESULTS

We identified 30,130 publications with first authors from EDs in 19 countries. The numbers of publications in both EM and non-EM journals showed an increasing trend in 12 countries. Fifteen of the 19 countries had a greater increasing trend in non-EM journals than in EM journals. The 2009 publication numbers were positively correlated with the publication increasing trend between 2009 and 2018 in both EM and non-EM journals (r = 0.854 and 0.947, respectively, both p < 0.001). The funded publication number was positively correlated with the total national publication amount (r_s = 0.748, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The research capacity of EDs has been increasingly recognized by other medical specialties. The national publication numbers from EDs may predict the academic publication increasing trends in the subsequent 10 years.

Predatory journals - Alarming danger to the society

Research and publications have taken the driver's seat in the last decade, especially amongst the Orthopaedic surgeons of India (Vaishya and Lal, 2016 Oct-Dec)¹. Doing research and publishing scientific papers is crucial to practice evidence-based medicine and keep updated on the latest developments. It is also a quick method to get recognized in your field by your peers and colleagues. Sometimes, publishing literature is vital to gain positions in the profession and achieve promotions (Patralekh et al., 2021)². As a result, there is a sudden upsurge in printed literature that is inaccurate or up to the mark. It has become tough to believe the conclusions provided and alter one's clinical practice based on these facts. Hence, before reading a paper, one must learn to assess the journal's quality and its publications. In recent times, there is an upsurge in the number of predatory journals causing harm to the entire research world.

References and Citations: Is It Time to Update Their Format?

Collapse

Analysis of the evolution of the publication of case reports in endocrinology journals

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.

The scientometric analysis of the research on microalgae-based wastewater treatment

This study explores the characteristics of the literature on microalgae-based wastewater treatment during the past 20 years, based on the Web of Science Core Collection database and its scientometric techniques. The results reveal that the literature on microalgae-based wastewater treatment has grown rapidly with 2621 publications and 54,388 citations in total. Most of the document types are journal articles, constituting 80.7% of the total records. China and the USA are the two most active countries, regarding the publications and cooperation in this filed from the viewpoint of the number of publishing papers, total number of citations, and the number of multinational author papers. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the largest institutional contributor, publishing 2.3% of the papers, followed by the Indian Institute of Technology (2.2%) and Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (2.1%). The most publishing author is Ruan (35 papers) with the highest number of citation (2460 times). "Bioresource Technology" is the most publishing journal with 365 published papers, while 36.2% of the total sample is published in the subject area of "Environmental Sciences Ecology." The most cited paper in the past 20 years is a review of the status of phosphorus removal in wastewater by de-Bashan in 2004. Bibliometric analysis has systematically combed the development system of microalgae-based wastewater treatment in the past 20 years and has a great potential to gain valuable insights for the future development, which provides a supplement to the common content analysis.

Day-to-day discovery of preprint-publication links

Preprints promote the open and fast communication of non-peer reviewed work. Once a preprint is published in a peer-reviewed venue, the preprint server updates its web page: a prominent hyperlink leading to the newly published work is added. Linking preprints to publications is of utmost importance as it provides readers with the latest version of a now certified work. Yet leading preprint servers fail to identify all existing preprint–publication links. This limitation calls for a more thorough approach to this critical information retrieval task: overlooking published evidence translates into partial and even inaccurate systematic reviews on health-related issues, for instance. We designed an algorithm leveraging the Crossref public and free source of bibliographic metadata to comb the literature for preprint–publication links. We tested it on a reference preprint set identified and curated for a living systematic review on interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19 performed by international collaboration: the COVID-NMA initiative (covid-nma.com). The reference set comprised 343 preprints, 121 of which appeared as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. While the preprint servers identified 39.7% of the preprint–publication links, our linker identified 90.9% of the expected links with no clues taken from the preprint servers. The accuracy of the proposed linker is 91.5% on this reference set, with 90.9% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity. This is a 16.26% increase in accuracy compared to that of preprint servers. We release this software as supplementary material to foster its integration into preprint servers’ workflows and enhance a daily preprint–publication chase that is useful to all readers, including systematic reviewers. This preprint–publication linker currently provides day-to-day updates to the biomedical experts of the COVID-NMA initiative.

[Place of theses and dissertations in the scientific publications of dermato-venereology teachers of the University of Lome (Togo)]

The aim of this study was to situate the place of theses and dissertations (senior healthcare technicians, D.E.S or master) in the scientific publications of dermato-venerology teachers at the University of Lomé (Togo). We listed the theses and dissertations on dermato-venerology between 1990 and 2016, in three institutions of the University of Lomé and consulted databases (Medline, Inist, registers of the service) to search for publications by teachers during this period. A total of 41 theses and 50 dissertations were completed, on infectious dermatoses and STI/HIV (46.1%), immunoallergic dermatoses (11.0%) and tumour dermatoses (8.8%). Of these 91 works, 56 (including 28 theses) were published in indexed (21 theses and 26 dissertations) or non-indexed (7 theses and 2 dissertations) journals. These 56 publications represented 27.7% of the 202 publications made by the dermato-venerology teachers at the University of Lomé during this period. Of the 28 published theses, the MD student was the first author in one case (3,6%) This work shows that theses and dissertations in dermato-venerology represent almost one third of the publications in this discipline in Togo.

New Year’s greeting and overview of World Journal of Virology in 2021

The 2020 year-end wrap-up session of Baishideng Publishing Group was held on December 31, 2020. All staff attended this session. We shared our key results area and made a business plan regarding the journal management. World Journal of Virology (WJV) is now abstracted and indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central. It received 23 manuscripts and published 9 papers which included 6 articles reporting coronavirus 19 in 2020. On the other hand, we made major strategies for WJV’s development in 2021. At present, WJV only has 28 Editorial Board members and cannot receive many manuscripts. We must redouble our efforts to invite more highly influential scientists to join our Editorial Board member and write high-quality manuscripts.

Publication Bias in Gastrointestinal Oncology Trials Performed over the Past Decade

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice, but their development and implementation is resource intensive. We aimed to describe modern RCTs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and identify predictors of successful accrual and publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase III GI cancer RCTs opened between 2010 and 2019 and divided into two cohorts: past and recruiting. Past trials were analyzed for predictors of successful accrual and the subset with ≥3 years follow-up were analyzed for predictors of publication. Univariate and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to identify covariates associated with complete accrual and publication status.

RESULTS

A total of 533 GI RCTs were opened from 2010 to 2019, 244 of which are still recruiting. In the "past" trials cohort (235/533) MVA, Asian continent of enrollment was a predictor for successful accrual, whereas trials with prolonged enrollment (duration longer than median of 960 days) trended to failed accrual. Predictors for publication on MVA included international enrollment and accrual completion. Sponsorship was not associated with accrual or publication. Notably, 33% of past trials remain unpublished, and 60% of trials that were closed early remain unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Accrual rate and the primary continent of enrollment drive both trial completion and publication in GI oncology. Accrual must be streamlined to enhance the impact of RCTs on clinical management. A large portion of trials remain unpublished, underscoring the need to encourage dissemination of all trials to, at a minimum, inform future trial design.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Two-thirds of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology phase III randomized controlled trials successfully accrue; however, one third of these trials are unpublished and more than half of trials that close early are unpublished. The strongest predictors for publication are successful accrual and international collaborations. Initiatives to optimize the trial enrollment process need to be explored to maximize the potential for trials to engender progress in clinical practice. Moreover, this study identified a significant publication bias in the realm of GI oncology, and the field should promote reporting of all trials in order to better inform future trial questions and design.

New Year’s greeting and overview of World Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2021

Although the whole world has been suffering under the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the World Journal of Clinical Oncology (WJCO) was able to productively direct our efforts in the field through 2020. This was only accomplished through the collective efforts and support of our Editorial Board members, peer reviewers, authors, readers and editorial office staff. In 2020, the WJCO published 12 issues encompassing 84 papers, a 115.4% increase over 2019 (39 papers). In December of 2020, we strategized a plan to solicit even more high-quality contributions for WJCO in 2021. So far, we have registered and accepted 188 manuscript titles, including 132 reviews and 56 original articles. In the New Year, we will work with our internal and external colleagues who care about and support the development of WJCO with the express aim of improving the academic rank of WJCO in the field of oncology. Ultimately, our goal is to merit and gain inclusion in the Science Citation Index Expanded, with the first impact factor being awarded as soon as possible.

[How to publish in pediatrics journals with impact factor: Role of open access journals]

To publish articles in prestigious scientific journals is not a simple task, particularly because of three main reasons: the difficulty for designing and performing competitive and high quality research, the high rates of rejection in most high-impact journals, and the absence of systematized training in the methodology of biomedical publications in the curricular programs. If to this is added the progressive complexity of the instructions for authors and the formal requirements that most journals impose, it is logical that there is discouragement among potential authors. On the other hand, the pressure and the demand for authorship of scientific articles to be able to get academic and professional positions of a certain level are increasing. However, what at first glance seems a gloomy perspective, it is not so much if some key aspects related to the structure and writing of manuscripts and the systematics of the editorial process of the journals are known and applied, which, in short, continue being in force since the aphorism «publish or perish» became popular at the beginning of the last century. As described in this article, the steps to follow are straightforward, logical, and interrelated, so getting off to a good start and completing the various stages properly and in the right order always represents a clear advantage in ensuring the final success of having your paper accepted.

Bibliometric Analysis of the 50 Most Cited Publications in Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Background

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has historically been a neglected disease. However, research in this field has grown exponentially in the past decade.

Methods

The top-cited HS articles from 1950 to 2020 were analyzed for authorship, study topic, study design, and senior author country of origin.

Results

We found that nearly half of the top 50 cited articles were published in the last decade, with a recent increase in the number of highly cited randomized controlled trials. Medical treatment is the most cited topic, with more attention on biologics over time. The past decade has seen an increase in highly cited articles on HS comorbidities, pathogenesis, and clinical practice guidelines. There has been a predominance of highly cited HS research from Europe; highly cited studies from Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America are lacking.

Conclusions

Recent advances in HS research have focused on investigating HS pathogenesis and drug development, highlighting disease comorbidities, and improving evidence-based care. Studies in pathogenesis have translated into a paradigm shift in medical treatment from antibiotics to incorporation of targeted therapies in recent years. Encouraging growth of HS research in countries outside of North America and Europe may help to optimize HS care globally.

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Purpose

To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology.

Methods

In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance.

Results

A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses.

Conclusion

The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01729-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publication of oral and video presentations from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting over 11 years - What characteristics were important?

•

From 2006 to 2016, over 85% of SGO annual meeting oral plenaries were published.

•

Surgical videos had a publication rate of only 41%.

•

Multicenter, international and cohort studies were predictive of publication.

•

Among published content, cancer genetics was the most commonly covered topic.

•

Gynecologic Oncology was the most frequent publisher of conference research.

The goal of this study was to determine the characteristics associated with publication of oral and video presentations presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meetings. Abstracts were reviewed using publication booklets from 2006 to 2016. PubMed and internet searches were used to determine publication status. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses.

Of 585 oral plenary sessions, 502 (85.8%) led to publications in peer-reviewed journals. The majority (75.7%) of presentations were clinical rather than translational (24.3%). Compared to single institution studies, multicenter presentations led to a higher publication rate (89.9% 80.5%; p = 0.001). Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies had publication rates of over 90%, while chart reviews and translational research were published at a rate of 87.1% and 80%, respectively (p = 0.004). 41.4% of all publications were in the specialty journal Gynecologic Oncology. Of 56 surgical videos, 23 (41.1%) advanced to publication in either peer-reviewed journals or as online videos: 32.1% were in print media, 5.4% were posted as accessible online videos (YouTube, Google Video, university websites). On multivariate analysis of oral presentations, multicenter studies (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15–3.31; p = 0.01), cohort studies (OR: 3.13; 95% CI: 1.30–7.58; p = 0.01), and international studies (OR: 4.02; 95% CI: 1.20–13.40; p = 0.02) were most likely to be published.

Over 11 Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meetings, >85% of oral plenary sessions led to peer-reviewed publication and 41% of surgical videos were published or accessible online. Multicenter, international, and cohort studies were more likely to be published.

Want a better h-index? - All you need to know about copyright and open access

INTRODUCTION

Physicians, whether in the public or private sector, are increasingly bound to "publish or perish". Although researchers have become aware of certain ethical concerns relating to the concept of authorship, clinicians still tend to neglect issues of copyright. The present study aims: 1) to explain to orthopedic surgeons what exactly is protected by copyright in a scientific article; 2) to assess the legal implications of publishing contracts; and 3) to specify the means of publication that best boost the author's h-index.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was based on intellectual property legislation and jurisprudence and the underlying principles. The European and American medical and legal literature was analyzed.

RESULTS

It is vital to understand the basic principles of copyright and the legal implications of publishing contracts. A scientific article is protected by copyright as soon as it has been written. This confers both moral and property rights. "Moral" rights protect the person of the author and are inalienable; unlike property rights, they cannot be transferred. Publishing contracts can only concern property and other derivative rights. Most scientific articles are published in open access via Creative Commons (CC) licenses. The greater the freedom of use provided for in the CC license, the more easily other authors can use the article, adding to it or altering it. As all CC licenses include an attribution clause, authors publishing under a relatively unrestrictive CC license increase the chances of boosting their h-index.

CONCLUSION

Forewarned is forearmed. Mastering the means of publication enables authors to make the most of their publications in boosting their h-index, and also to contribute to the new Open Science paradigm: abandoning some intellectual property in favor of innovation and knowledge sharing rather than clinging to data protection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

BACKGROUND

Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings.

METHODS

In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals.

RESULTS

Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Protocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

A total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.