The increasing impact of International Angiology journal publications

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Armando MANSILHA
Keyword(s):  
Journal Publications

scholarly journals Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e051821
Author(s):  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Rosa Lawrence ◽  
Louis Leslie ◽  
Kellia Chiu ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Journal Publications ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Results Reporting

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 101153
Author(s):  
Fang Xu ◽  
Guiyan Ou ◽  
Tingcan Ma ◽  
Xianwen Wang
Keyword(s):  
Journal Publications

scholarly journals Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asger S. Paludan-Müller ◽  
Perrine Créquit ◽  
Isabelle Boutron
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Study ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Clinical Trial Registries ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Journal Publications ◽  
Clinical Study Reports ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications. Methods We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources. Results We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09–7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16–4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18–7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64–5.04) years for publications. Conclusions Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

scholarly journals Joint Editorial: Invigorating hydrological research through journal publications

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. iii-ix
Author(s):  
Nevil Quinn ◽  
Günter Blöschl ◽  
András Bárdossy ◽  
Attilio Castellarin ◽  
Martyn Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Current Status ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Journal Publications

Abstract Editors of several journals in the field of hydrology met during the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union – EGU in Vienna in April 2017. This event was a follow-up of similar meetings held in 2013 and 2015. These meetings enable the group of editors to review the current status of the journals and the publication process, and to share thoughts on future strategies. Journals were represented at the 2017 meeting by their editors, as shown in the list of authors. The main points on invigorating hydrological research through journal publications are communicated in this joint editorial published in the journals listed here.

scholarly journals Joint Editorial "On the future of journal publications in hydrology"

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 2433-2435 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Blöschl ◽  
A. Bárdossy ◽  
D. Koutsoyiannis ◽  
Z. W. Kundzewicz ◽  
I. Littlewood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Future ◽  
Journal Publications

Worldwide Institutional and Individual Rankings in Statistical Theory by Journal Publications over the period 1980–1986

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.C.B. Phillips ◽  
I. Choi ◽  
P.Z. Schochet
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Theory ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Journal Publications ◽  
Leading Journals

Nine leading journals that publish statistical theory are used to provide a data base of institutional and individual research activity in statistics over the period 1980–1986. From this data base, we construct both institutional and individual research rankings according to standardized page counts of articles published in these journals over the stated period. The study is worldwide and we provide breakdowns of publication by country and by journal. Separate rankings are also provided for both institutions and individuals according to publication track records in the Annals of Statistics alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document