Navigating the Seas of Publications in A Medical Journal: The Role of an Editor

The world of scientific publishing is a dynamic ecosystem where groundbreaking research and discoveries find their way into the public domain. Scientific journals play a pivotal role in disseminating new knowledge, shaping the healthcare landscape, and influencing clinical practice. Behind the scenes, editors serve as gatekeepers, meticulously reviewing and selecting articles to ensure the highest standards of quality and relevance. This article offers insights into the role of editors regarding publications in medical journals, shedding light on the challenges, responsibilities, and evolving trends in this crucial process.

Analysis of gender representation on transfusion medicine journal editorial boards: Comparison between 2019 and 2022

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A 2019 study highlighted significant gender inequities among blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) journal editorial boards. We sought to assess if the representation of women has improved in the intervening 3 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the gender composition of nine BBTM journal editorial boards as of 13 September 2022, including the seven journals studied in 2019. We compared this to the proportion of females (term used by authors) on seven BBTM journal editorial boards in 2019 to assess change in the editorial board composition. We also assessed gender composition by editorial position (editor-in-chief [EIC], associate/assistant/titled editors and editorial board members).

RESULTS

Nine BBTM journals have a total of 398 editorial positions and comprise significantly more men than women (68.8%, 274/398 vs. 31.2%, 124/398; p < 0.001). Among the seven journals analysed in 2019, the proportion of women on these seven editorial boards has remained unchanged (2019: 30.1%, 81/269 vs. 2022: 31.9%, 103/323; p = 0.66) despite the addition of 54 editorial positions.

CONCLUSION

Women remain inequitably represented on journal editorial boards among all journal editorial positions. Although advocacy efforts are increasing, there has been limited improvement in gender equity in 3 years, despite a 20% increase in editorial positions.

Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

Alternative Metrics ("Altmetrics") for Assessing Article Impact in Popular General Radiology Journals

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Emerging alternative metrics leverage social media and other online platforms to provide immediate measures of biomedical articles' reach among diverse public audiences. We aimed to compare traditional citation and alternative impact metrics for articles in popular general radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 892 original investigations published in 2013 issues of Academic Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of the American College of Radiology, and Radiology were included. Each article's content was classified as imaging vs nonimaging. Traditional journal citations to articles were obtained from Web of Science. Each article's Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetric), representing weighted mentions across a variety of online platforms, was obtained from Altmetric.com. Statistical assessment included the McNemar test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

Mean and median traditional citation counts were 10.7 ± 15.4 and 5 vs 3.3 ± 13.3 and 0 for Altmetric. Among all articles, 96.4% had ≥1 traditional citation vs 41.8% for Altmetric (P < 0.001). Online platforms for which at least 5% of the articles were represented included Mendeley (42.8%), Twitter (34.2%), Facebook (10.7%), and news outlets (8.4%). Citations and Altmetric were weakly correlated (r = 0.20), with only a 25.0% overlap in terms of articles within their top 10th percentiles. Traditional citations were higher for articles with imaging vs nonimaging content (11.5 ± 16.2 vs 6.9 ± 9.8, P < 0.001), but Altmetric scores were higher in articles with nonimaging content (5.1 ± 11.1 vs 2.8 ± 13.7, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall online attention to radiology journal content was low, alternative metrics exhibited unique trends, particularly for nonclinical articles, and may provide a complementary measure of radiology research impact compared to traditional citation counts.

Use of a Machine-learning Method for Predicting Highly Cited Articles Within General Radiology Journals

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the performance of a text classification machine-learning model in predicting highly cited articles within the recent radiological literature and to identify the model's most influential article features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We downloaded from PubMed the title, abstract, and medical subject heading terms for 10,065 articles published in 25 general radiology journals in 2012 and 2013. Three machine-learning models were applied to predict the top 10% of included articles in terms of the number of citations to the article in 2014 (reflecting the 2-year time window in conventional impact factor calculations). The model having the highest area under the curve was selected to derive a list of article features (words) predicting high citation volume, which was iteratively reduced to identify the smallest possible core feature list maintaining predictive power. Overall themes were qualitatively assigned to the core features.

RESULTS

The regularized logistic regression (Bayesian binary regression) model had highest performance, achieving an area under the curve of 0.814 in predicting articles in the top 10% of citation volume. We reduced the initial 14,083 features to 210 features that maintain predictivity. These features corresponded with topics relating to various imaging techniques (eg, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, hyperpolarized magnetic resonance imaging, dual-energy computed tomography, computed tomography reconstruction algorithms, tomosynthesis, elastography, and computer-aided diagnosis), particular pathologies (prostate cancer; thyroid nodules; hepatic adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease), and other topics (radiation dose, electroporation, education, general oncology, gadolinium, statistics).

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning can be successfully applied to create specific feature-based models for predicting articles likely to achieve high influence within the radiological literature.

Retracted Publications Within Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize trends related to retracted publications within radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was queried to identify all articles with the publication type "retracted publication" or "notification of retraction." Articles published within radiology journals were identified using Journal Citation Reports' journal categories. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. Citations to retracted publications were identified using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight retracted original research articles were identified within radiology journals since 1983, which included 1.1% of all PubMed "retracted publication" entries. Distinct PubMed entries were available for the retracted publication and retraction notification in 39 of 48 articles. The original PDF was available for 37 articles, although the articles were not watermarked as retracted in 23 cases. In six cases with a watermarked PDF, further searches identified nonwatermarked versions. Original HTML versions were available for 13 articles but 11 were not watermarked. The mean (± SD) delay between publication and retraction was 2.7 ± 2.8 years (range, 0-16 years). The mean number of citations to retracted articles was 10.9 ± 17.1 (range, 0-94 citations). Reasons for retraction included problematic or incorrect methods or results (although it typically was unclear whether these represented honest errors or misconduct) in 33.3% of cases, complete or partial duplicate publication in 33.3% of cases, plagiarism in 14.6% of cases, a permission issue in 8.3% of cases, the publisher's error in 6.3% of cases, and no identified reason in 6.3% of cases. One or no retractions occurred annually from 1986 to 2001, although two or more retractions occurred annually in nine of the 12 years from 2002 through 2013.

CONCLUSION

Retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing, issue within radiology journals that publishers have inconsistently and insufficiently addressed. Greater awareness and training in proper biomedical research conduct, as well as establishment and enforcement of standardized publishers' policies, are warranted.

The Impact Factor of Radiological Journals: Associations with Journal Content and Other Characteristics Over a Recent 12-Year Period

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends in the impact factor (IF) of radiological journals over a recent 12-year period, including associations between IF and journal topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Journal Citation Reports (JCR) was used to identify all biomedical journals and all radiological journals (assigned a JCR category of "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, & Medical Imaging"), along with journal IF, in 2003 and 2014. Radiological journals were manually classified by topic. Trends in median IF (mIF) were assessed.

RESULTS

The number of radiological journals increased from 83 (2003) to 125 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 5907 to 8718, respectively). mIF of radiological journals increased from 1.42 (2003) to 1.75 (2014) (all biomedical journals: 0.93 to 1.46, respectively). The most common topic among new radiological journals was general (nonspecialized) radiology (8). Five new radiological journals in 2014 were in topics (cancer imaging and molecular imaging) having no journals in 2003. mIF of general radiological journals was 1.49. Topics having highest mIF were cardiac imaging (2.94), optics (2.86), molecular imaging (2.77), radiation oncology (2.60), and neuroradiology (2.25). Topics with lowest mIF were ultrasound (1.19) and interventional radiology (1.44). Topics with the largest increase in mIF were cardiac imaging (from 1.17 to 2.94) and neuroradiology (from 1.07 to 2.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiological journals exhibited higher mIF than biomedical journals overall. Among radiological journals, subspecialty journals had highest mIF. While a considerable number of new radiological journals since 2003 were general radiology journals having relatively low IF, there were also new journal topics representing emerging areas of subspecialized radiological research.

Scientometrics of drug discovery efforts: pain-related molecular targets

The aim of this study was to make a scientometric assessment of drug discovery efforts centered on pain-related molecular targets. The following scientometric indices were used: the popularity index, representing the share of articles (or patents) on a specific topic among all articles (or patents) on pain over the same 5-year period; the index of change, representing the change in the number of articles (or patents) on a topic from one 5-year period to the next; the index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of all types of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed over a 5-year period; the total number of articles representing Phase I–III trials of investigational drugs over a 5-year period; and the trial balance index, a ratio of Phase I–II publications to Phase III publications. Articles (PubMed database) and patents (US Patent and Trademark Office database) on 17 topics related to pain mechanisms were assessed during six 5-year periods from 1984 to 2013. During the most recent 5-year period (2009–2013), seven of 17 topics have demonstrated high research activity (purinergic receptors, serotonin, transient receptor potential channels, cytokines, gamma aminobutyric acid, glutamate, and protein kinases). However, even with these seven topics, the index of expectations decreased or did not change compared with the 2004–2008 period. In addition, publications representing Phase I–III trials of investigational drugs (2009–2013) did not indicate great enthusiasm on the part of the pharmaceutical industry regarding drugs specifically designed for treatment of pain. A promising development related to the new tool of molecular targeting, ie, monoclonal antibodies, for pain treatment has not yet resulted in real success. This approach has not yet demonstrated clinical effectiveness (at least with nerve growth factor) much beyond conventional analgesics, when its potential cost is more than an order of magnitude higher than that of conventional treatments. This scientometric assessment demonstrated a lack of real breakthrough developments.

Ethical aspects and dilemmas of preparing, writing and publishing of the scientific papers in the biomedical journals

Introduction:

In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.

Results and Discussion:

Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.