The publication fate of abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association conferences

Objective: We sought to determine how many abstracts presented at the 2012 and 2014 Medical Library Association (MLA) annual conferences were later published as full-text journal articles and which features of the abstract and first author influence the likelihood of future publication. To do so, we replicated a previous study on MLA conference abstracts presented in 2002 and 2003. The secondary objective was to compare the publication rates between the prior and current study.Methods: Presentations and posters delivered at the 2012 and 2014 MLA meetings were coded to identify factors associated with publication. Postconference publication of abstracts as journal articles was determined using a literature search and survey sent to first authors. Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences in the publication rate, and logistic regression was used to assess the influence of abstract factors on publication.Results: The combined publication rate for the 2012 and 2014 meetings was 21.8% (137/628 abstracts), which is a statistically significant decrease compared to the previously reported rate for 2002 and 2003 (27.6%, 122/442 abstracts). The odds that an abstract would later be published as a journal article increased if the abstract was multi-institutional or if it was research, specifically surveys or mixed methods research.Conclusions: The lower publication rate of MLA conference abstracts may be due to an increased number of program or nonresearch abstracts that were accepted or a more competitive peer review process for journals. MLA could increase the publication rate by encouraging and enabling multi-institutional research projects among its members.

Download Full-text

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference from 2002 to 2008

Journal of Chiropractic Education ◽

10.7899/jce-13-14 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 32-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Barclay W. Bakkum ◽

Cynthia Chapman ◽

Claire Johnson

Keyword(s):

Research Agenda ◽

Journal Article ◽

Publication Rate ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Meeting Abstract ◽

Publication Rates ◽

Chiropractic Education ◽

Literature Searches ◽

Platform Presentation ◽

Poster Presentations

Objective The purposes of this study were to investigate the overall publication rates of presentations at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings (2002–2008), differences in the publication rates of platform vs poster presentations, and the consistency of the meeting abstract compared to the full-length journal article. Methods Abstracts were obtained from proceedings published in the Journal of Chiropractic Education. Literature searches using PubMed and the Index to the Chiropractic Literature (ICL) were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based upon those abstracts. Whether the article was based upon a poster or platform presentation, and the congruence of the information in the abstract and article were recorded. Results We identified 776 proceeding abstracts, 249 of which eventually were published between 2002 and 2012. The overall publication rate was 32.2%. A total of 42.7% of platform presentations eventually were published vs 20.3% of posters. Congruency showed that 43.2% had the same title as the meeting abstract, 59.7% had the same authorship, and 88.8% had the same methods. Conclusion Publication rates of abstracts from spine and orthopedic surgery national meetings range from 34% to 59%. The ACC/RAC meetings have similar publication rates. More platform than poster presentations reach full publication. The congruency of ACC/RAC abstracts to published articles is higher than national meetings in other fields.

Download Full-text

Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Biomedical preprints and peer-reviewed literature

10.1101/2021.01.21.427563 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yulia V. Sevryugina ◽

Andrew J. Dicks

Keyword(s):

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Life Sciences ◽

Open Science ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Biomedical Sciences ◽

Online Journal ◽

Publication Practices ◽

Comprehensive Study

AbstractThe coronavirus pandemic introduced many changes to our society, and deeply affected the established in biomedical sciences publication practices. In this article, we present a comprehensive study of the changes in scholarly publication landscape for biomedical sciences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with special emphasis on preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers. We observe the emergence of a new category of preprint authors working in the fields of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, and epidemiology, who extensively used preprint platforms during the pandemic for sharing their immediate findings. The majority of these findings were works-in-progress unfitting for a prompt acceptance by refereed journals. The COVID-19 preprints that became peer-reviewed journal articles were often submitted to journals concurrently with the posting on a preprint server, and the entire publication cycle, from preprint to the online journal article, took on average 63 days. This included an expedited peer-review process of 43 days and journal’s production stage of 15 days, however there was a wide variation in publication delays between journals. Only one third of COVID-19 preprints posted during the first nine months of the pandemic appeared as peer-reviewed journal articles. These journal articles display high Altmetric Attention Scores further emphasizing a significance of COVID-19 research during 2020. This article will be relevant to editors, publishers, open science enthusiasts, and anyone interested in changes that the 2020 crisis transpired to publication practices and a culture of preprints in life sciences.

Download Full-text

Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2463v1 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Wenfa Ng

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Natural World ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Funding Agency ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together, or used to inform the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing where most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end “journal article” level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers (except eLife) charge a publication fee (in the thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal publication. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research or entirely new fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

Download Full-text

Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2463v3 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Wenfa Ng

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Natural World ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Funding Agency ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together and informs the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing given that most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end gold (or immediate) open access journal article level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers charge a publication fee (in the hundreds to thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal article production. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research ideas and fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish gold open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

Download Full-text

Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

Research Integrity and Peer Review ◽

10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽

Meredith L. Phillips ◽

Avonne E. Connor ◽

Kelly J. Vander Ley ◽

Kevin Naaman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Research Report ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Press Releases ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Before And After ◽

Peer Reviewers

Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Download Full-text

The Influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE’s Peer-Review and Acceptance Time

10.1101/2020.01.28.920546 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Hiroyuki Tsunoda ◽

Yuan Sun ◽

Masaki Nishizawa ◽

Xiaomin Liu ◽

Kou Amano

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Publication Rate ◽

Knowledge Dissemination ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Academic Journals ◽

Journal Publishing ◽

Journal Submission ◽

Submission Date

AbstractThis study examines the relation between acceptance times in preprint publishing and journal publishing. Specifically, we investigated the association between a paper’s posting time to bioRχiv, a preprints server, and journal articles’ peer-review and acceptance time for PLOS ONE. So far, of the total papers published in 1,626 academic journals, the average publication rate of those posted in bioRχiv is 40.67%. Meanwhile, PLOS ONE was the journal that published more papers. Analysis of peer-review and acceptance time of papers published in journals via preprints showed the time these papers are posted in relation to these intervals. The median of the peer-review and acceptance time of the journal submission date that was later than the date of first posting to bioRχiv was 110.00 days, and in the reverse case, it was 139.50 days. Posting to the preprint server before journal submission shows a better order than vice versa. This study provides us a good understanding of the peer-review process. It also gives us good insights into optimizing this process, which would then facilitate paper publication and knowledge dissemination.

Download Full-text

Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2463 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Wenfa Ng

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Natural World ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Funding Agency ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together and informs the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing given that most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end gold (or immediate) open access journal article level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers charge a publication fee (in the hundreds to thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal article production. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research ideas and fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish gold open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

Download Full-text

Overview of the Journal Article

Write Like a Chemist ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195367423.003.0008 ◽

2008 ◽

Author(s):

Marin S Robinson ◽

Fredricka L Stoller ◽

Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽

James K Jones

Keyword(s):

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Writing Quality ◽

Journal Quality ◽

Primary Literature ◽

Public Record ◽

Chemistry Journal

This chapter introduces the journal article module. The chapter describes some of the defining characteristics of a journal article while emphasizing concise writing and organization. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to do the following: Recognize the importance ■ of concise writing ■ Identify the broad organizational structure of journal articles ■ Explain what is meant by targeted reading and keywords As you move through the chapter, you will begin to plan your own journal- quality paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you in this process: 2A Get started 2B Select your topic 2C Conduct a literature search 2D Find additional resources 2E Decide on the broad organization of your paper Module 1 focuses entirely on writing a journal-quality paper, a paper suitable for submission to a refereed chemistry journal. Refereed journals include only articles that have made it through a rigorous peer-review process. In this process, a submitted manuscript is critically reviewed by two or more anonymous reviewers. The reviewers are asked to judge both the scientific merit and writing quality of the manuscript. Authors are often required to revise their work before it can be accepted for publication. The entire review process can take six months or longer. An account of the review process typically appears in the published article, for example, Received for review March 9, 2008. Revised manuscript received August 3, 2008. Accepted August 5, 2008. Once published, the journal article becomes part of the primary literature of chemistry. The primary literature is a permanent and public record of all scientific works, many of which are refereed journal articles.

Download Full-text

A systematic analysis of doctoral publication trends in South Africa

South African Journal of Science ◽

10.17159/sajs.2020/7926 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 116 (7/8) ◽

Author(s):

Susan van Schalkwyk ◽

Johann Mouton ◽

Herman Redelinghuys ◽

Sioux McKenna

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

South Africa ◽

Doctoral Students ◽

South African ◽

Journal Article ◽

Similarity Index ◽

Journal Articles ◽

The South ◽

Data Set ◽

Publication Rates

It is incumbent upon doctoral students that their work makes a substantive contribution to the field within which it is conducted. Dissemination of this work beyond the dissertation, whether whilst studying or after graduation, is necessary to ensure that the contribution does not remain largely dormant. While dissemination can take many forms, peer-reviewed journal articles are the key medium by which knowledge is shared. We aimed to establish the proportion of doctoral theses that results in journal publications by linking South African doctoral thesis metadata to journal articles authored by doctoral candidates. To effect this matching, a customised data set was created that comprised two large databases: the South African Theses Database (SATD), which documented all doctoral degrees awarded in South Africa (2005–2014), and the South African Knowledgebase (SAK), which listed all publications submitted for subsidy to the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (2005–2017). The process followed several iterations of matching and verification, including manual inspection of the data, in order to isolate only those records for which the link was established beyond doubt. Over the period under review, 47.6% of graduates, representing 22 of the 26 higher education institutions, published at least one journal article. Results further indicate increasingly higher publication rates over time. To explore whether the journal article identified was a direct product of the study, a similarity index was developed. Over 75% of records demonstrated high similarity. While the trend towards increasing publications by graduates is promising, work in this area should be ongoing.

Download Full-text

Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2463v2 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Wenfa Ng

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Article ◽

Natural World ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Funding Agency ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together, or used to inform the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing for their scientific literature, where most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end gold (or immediate) open access journal article level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers (except eLife) charge a publication fee (in the hundreds to thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal article production. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research and fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish gold open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

Download Full-text