Body mass index and aerobic capacity: The key variables for good performance in soldiers

Body composition, leg power and aerobic capacity have been shown to be related to performance, although their combined influence in a training task under load carriage in soldiers is still unknown. In this study, the influence of aerobic capacity, body composition and leg strength on performance during an obstacle test with and without combat equipment carriage was analysed. Forty males belonging to the Spanish Army participated in this study. The time needed to complete an obstacle course with and without load, aerobic capacity (20-m shuttle run test), leg power (squat jumps) and body composition variables (body mass index [BMI], fat mass and lean mass) were tested to determine the best predictors of performance. The results indicated that the best predictors of obstacle course performance with and without load carriage are VO_2max and BMI. The jump height was not a significant factor in the model. In conclusion, BMI and VO_2max are predictors of the obstacle test time with and without load carriage, so it is recommended that both variables are included as criteria for enrolment in the military army to guarantee army members exhibit the highest obstacle course performance possible. HighlightThe VO_2max and BMI are the best predictors of an obstacle course performance with/without load carriage.The jump height was not a significant performance factor.The VO_2max and BMI are recommended as enrolment criteria for military army.

Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals

Objective

The aim of this contribution is to determine what variables influence the position, by quartiles of the impact factor, as a quality indicator of a journal in the field of Dentistry.

Methods

To this end, 24 journals included in Journal Citation Reports, 6 pertaining to each quartile were selected by a stratified sampling and then an ordinal regression model was estimated stepwise considering the journal impact factor quartile as response variable.

Results

The estimation procedure concluded that the average number of papers published yearly by a journal and the percentage of systematic reviews are the most significant variables to be considered, along with the factor representing the journal's degree of adherence to recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Conclusions/Clinical significance

Systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor position of a journal as well as adherence to ICMJE recommendations, while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers in a journal means a higher impact factor.

Is the trend to publish reviews and clinical trials related to the journal impact factor? Analysis in dentistry field

It is generally accepted that the Journal Impact Factor is a quality criterion. The objective was to determine the evolution along the period 2010-2016 of number of different types of papers, reviews and clinical trials, published by dental journals, as well as if they are related with the quartile occupied in the Journal Impact Factor 2017 ranking. To this end, ten journals per quartile belonging to the field Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports were randomly selected. For each journal and year, the total number of narrative reviews, systematic reviews (with and without meta-analysis), meta-analysis, clinical trials and randomized controlled trials were obtained from Pubmed. To achieve our goal, the slope of these variables over time was estimated using the least squares method, after which one-way analysis of variance of mean values was performed. In Dentistry, the journals of the top quartiles show a trend to publish increasing amounts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, than the ones of the third and fourth quartile. On the other hand, globally, there was virtually no increase in narrative reviews, clinical trials and randomized controlled trial. Possible causes of this behavior are also discussed in this article.

Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?

BACKGROUND

The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.

OBJECTIVE

We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.

RESULTS

63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.

DISCUSSION

Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.