Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

The BJPsych: from asylum to psychiatry by dint of mental science

After thanking his predecessors, the newly appointed College Editor and Editor-in-Chief of The British Journal of Psychiatry, Professor Gin Malhi, outlines both the historical and personal significance of the journal in this proemial editorial.

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

INTRODUCTION

Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics.

RESULTS

Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%.

CONCLUSION

Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

Peer review? No thanks!

The peer review process is an inalienable necessity in the modern scientific world. Published manuscripts are founded on feedback, a process in which reviewers evaluate the scientific values of the submitted paper and provide comments and criticisms. The aim of this process is to assist authors by improving their papers, to promote good science. The peer-review process can be represented as a hurdle race with the ultimate prize of innovative accurate scientific knowledge being published. In this process, we have on the one side the authors and originators of ideas and on the other editors and reviewers. In the process of publishing a scientific article, it is important to respect the time and efforts of both actors.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non-race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non-race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non-race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

The Impact of Academic Publication: Inequity for Women in Behavior Analytic Journals

The number of women in higher education has increased over the past few decades but are still not at an equal level to their male counterparts, especially at the tenured level. One area of note within the tenure process is research. This area is highly valued by certain universities and could shed light on discrepancies in the number of female faculty as the faculty position becomes more prestigious. The author downloaded 21 years of publication data for seven prestigious behavior analytic journals and used quantitative methods to determine if the rates of publication differed between a previous study and today. There were 8,778 final articles yielding 27,225 authors in total. Data showed that women are represented more frequently overall, across time and all journals, less frequently in prestigious authorship positions, and more often when the sex of the editor at the time of publication was also female. While women's participation has increased over time, and since the original study, there is still disproportionate representation compared to the entirety of the field, in the order of authorship positions, and for editor-in-chief positions.

Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion

Strong beliefs can influence the way we deal with emotionally charged topics. Researchers, editors, and reviewers are not an exception. Declaring such nonfinancial conflict of interest when handling or reviewing submitted articles is often obligatory; however, the declaration is not a license to submit a biased review with personal insults or to break the journal's guidelines. This kind of poor practice can be a clear sign of the seriousness of conflict of interest. In this article, I argue that hostile, unethical, and biased behavior of reviewers and editors often arises from a serious nonfinancial conflict of interest, which should not be ignored or undermined.

Gender Parity Remains To Be Achieved for the Range of Editorial Roles Associated with Current Australasian Medical Journals

With gender parity of medical school graduates having been achieved for well over two decades, it is timely to assess whether this has translated into gender parity for all of the editorial type roles of Australasian medical journals, reflecting a move toward gender equity. Data analysis was undertaken of the gender ratios of the current editorial roles of Australasian medical journals as compared to available Australian Health Workforce data. This reveals some variation in the gender ratios for all of the current range of editorial type positions and, hence, an absence of parity. There are no women holding formal editorial positions at all for 27.7% of these journals, whilst 77.7% of the chief editors' roles are occupied by men. For five out of 18 (27.7%) of the journals, gender parity has been or is close to having been achieved for these particular roles. These gender ratios do not mirror the gender ratios of the wider community of practice for at least 50% of the journals. Hence, it can be seen that gender parity is yet to be achieved for the range of editorial roles of Australasian medical journals, which carries implications for gender equity initiatives.

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research.

DESIGN

We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.

PARTICIPANTS

All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.

METHODS

We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.

RESULTS

We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.

CONCLUSION

The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

A cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals

OBJECTIVE

To assess the fulfilment of authors' and editors' individual disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a group of highly influential medicine journals across a variety of specialties.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Top-ranked five journals as per 2017 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 26 medical, surgery and imaging specialties.

INTERVENTIONS

Observational analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of journals requiring disclosure of authors' and editors' individual potential conflicts of interest (CoI). Journals that were listed as followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and linked to a third party (ie, college, professional association/society, public institution).

RESULTS

Although 99% (129/130) of journals required author's CoI disclosure, only 12% (16/130) reported individual editors' potential CoIs. Forty-five per cent (58/130) of journals were followers of the ICMJE Recommendations, and 73% (95/130) were COPE members. Most (69%; 90/130) were linked to a college, professional society/association or public institution. Only one journal did not have policies on individual authors' and editors' CoI disclosure.

CONCLUSION

Very few high-impact medical journals disclosed their editorial teams' individual potential CoIs-conversely, almost all required disclosure of authors' individual CoIs. Journal followers of the ICMJE Recommendations should regularly disclose the editors' individual CoIs, as this is the only legitimate way to ask the same transparency of authors.

Populism as an Expression of Political Communication Content and Style: A New Perspective

In this article, the introduction to a special International Journal of Press/Politics (IJPP) issue on populism, we articulate and define populism as a communication phenomenon. We provide an overview of populist political communication research and its current foci. We offer a framework for ongoing research and set the boundary conditions for a new generation of research on populist political communication, with an aim to push the research agendas and design toward a more interactive, systematic, and in particular, comparative approach to the study of populist political communication.

The continuing evolution of the Journal of Neurophysiology: 2018 update

The Journal of Neurophysiology continues to evolve to meet the needs of its authors and readers. This article summarizes recent changes intended to improve our evaluation and communication of neuroscience research.

Open data sharing in the context of bioresources

Recently many international initiatives have been developed to improve access to scientific information and to promote open data sharing. In the complex field of bioresources, the BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) project aims to create suitable methods to recognise and measure the use and impact of biological resources in scientific/academic work, in order to maximize access by researchers to collections of biological materials and attached databases, and to recognize efforts involved in their maintenance. The lack of a proper recognition of scientific contribution is in fact a major obstacle which impedes bioresource sharing. In this context, the BRIF initiative can be considered as a tool to facilitate research resource sharing.

Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism

Plagiarism and inadequate citing appear to have reached epidemic proportions in research publication. This article discusses how plagiarism is defined and suggests some possible causes for the increase in the plagiarism disease. Most editors do not have much tolerance for text re-use with inadequate citation regardless of reasons why words are copied from other sources without correct attribution. However, there is now some awareness that re-use of words in research articles to improve the writing or “the English” (which has become a common practice) should be distinguished from intentional deceit for the purpose of stealing other authors’ ideas (which appears to remain a very rare practice). Although it has become almost as easy for editors to detect duplicate text as it is for authors to re-use text from other sources, editors often fail to consider the reasons why researchers resort to this strategy, and tend to consider any text duplication as a symptom of serious misconduct. As a result, some authors may be stigmatized unfairly by being labeled as plagiarists. The article concludes with practical advice for researchers on how to improve their writing and citing skills and thus avoid accusations of plagiarism.

44 years of "the journal"

OBJECTIVE

To review the 44-year history of theJournal of Athletic Training.

DESCRIPTION

We examined the 179 issues of the Journal and selected 9 years (every 5 years beginning in 1957) for a page-by-page analysis of content. We interviewed 8 former Editors and Editors-in-Chief and drew upon our own experiences during a combined 56 years of association with the Journal. The Journal has undergone significant changes in both structure and quality; its growth mirrors the growth of the athletic training profession. During its infancy, the Journal relied greatly on reprints from other journals. Now, most authors are certified athletic trainers, sharing the results of their own scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

The Journal, like the athletic training profession, is alive and strong. It has become an independent leader in the dissemination of athletic health care information.