PP118 A Survival Analysis Of The Lag Times In The Publication Of Network Meta-Analyses

IntroductionThe use of inconsistent and outdated information may significantly compromise healthcare decision-making. We aimed to assess the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs).MethodsSearches for NMAs on drug interventions were performed in PubMed (May 2020). Lag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the date of the article's submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing, and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) allocation. Correlations between lag times and time trends were calculated by means of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables such as geographical origin, journal impact factor, Scopus CiteScore, and open access status.ResultsWe included 1,245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission and publication was 6.8 months and 11.6 months, respectively. Only five percent of authors updated their literature searches after submission. There was a very slight decreasing historical trend for acceptance (r =−0.087; p = 0.01), online publication (r =−0.08; p = 0.008), and indexing lag times (r =−0.080; p = 0.007). Journal impact factor influenced the MeSH allocation process (log-rank p = 0.02). Slight differences were observed for acceptance, online publication, and indexing lag times when comparing open access and subscription journals.ConclusionsAuthors need to update their literature searches before submission to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure that authors comply with NMA standards and encourage the development of living meta-analyses.

Medidas insuficientes para un cambio en la evalua-ción de la investigación en España: glosando las nuevas directrices de la ANECA

En una carta publicada hace seis meses (Delgado-López-Cózar, et al., 2021), pocas semanas después de que la Agencia Española de Evaluación se adhiriera a la declaración dora (dora, 2012), hacíamos un llamamiento a las autoridades científicas españolas para que abandonaran las políticas de evaluación de la investigación basadas en un uso excesivo e indiscriminado de los indicadores bibliométricos —especialmente el Journal Impact Factor (jif)—, para valorar el desempeño individual de los académicos. En concreto se les animaba a «que suscriban y cumplan con la dora y sigan las recomendaciones en el uso de indicadores bibliométricos señalados en el Manifiesto Leiden» (Hicks et al., 2015). Una mesa redonda organizada en el mes de julio con participación de distintos agentes del sistema español de i+d+i coincidía en la necesidad de afrontar ese cambio de forma urgente.

Characteristics and Research Techniques Associated with the Journal Impact Factor and Other Key Metrics in Pharmacology Journals

In the present age, there is intense pressure on researchers to publish their research in ‘high-impact factor’ journals. It would be interesting to understand the trend of research publications in the field of pharmacology by exploring the characteristics of research articles, including research techniques, in relation to the journal’s key bibliometrics, particularly journal impact factor (JIF), the seemingly most mentioned metric. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and research techniques in relation to research articles in pharmacology journals with higher or lower JIF values. A cross-sectional study was conducted on primary research journals under the ‘Pharmacology and Pharmacy’ category. Analysis of 768 original research articles across 32 journals (with an average JIF of 2.565 ± 0.887) demonstrated that research studies involving molecular techniques, in vivo experiments on animals, and bioinformatics and computational modeling were significantly associated with a higher JIF value of the journal in which such contributions were published. Our analysis suggests that research studies involving such techniques/approaches are more likely to be published in higher-ranked pharmacology journals.

Portuguese Authorship in Published Clinical Trials: Differences in Industry and Investigator Initiated Trials

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the Portuguese authorship in publications resulting from trials initiated by the industry or investigators and run in Portugal.Material and Methods: Clinical trials with Portuguese institutions as sponsor or recruiting centers, and registered in four clinical trial registries, in the last 14 years, were assessed. Publications of completed trials, from both the initiative of the industry and investigatorswere screened and compared.Results: The percentage of published trials initiated by industry and investigators was similar (28.0%). However, the percentage of completed investigator-initiated trials (43.6%) was lower when compared to industry trials (69.7%). There was a higher percentage of Portuguese authorship in published investigator-initiated trials when compared with industry-initiated trials (47.1% vs 8.5%, respectively). Moreover, industry-initiated trials with Portuguese authors were published in journals with lower journal impact factor when compared with those published without authorship of Portuguese investigators. Oncology was the therapeutic area with the highest number of clinical trial registrations and publications. However, in publications with Portuguese authors, industry Initiated trials mainly focused on neurology while investigator-initiated trials had a higher number of papers in the fields of gastroenterology and infection diseases. Published trials with Portuguese authorship, initiated by the industry or investigators, also targeted different populations and had different purposes. In both cases, no significant differences were observed in terms of the journal impact factor or in the alignment of the published randomized trials with the respective reporting guidelines.Discussion: When compared with previous publications, this study showed an increasing trend in the number of clinical trials in Portugal, published within similar timeframes, after trial conclusion. Even though both industry and investigator trials are published within the standards for reporting trials, the low number of Portuguese authorships in industry publications might underline the need for invigorating these independent clinical trials in Portugal by capacitating and empowering national clinical research teams.Conclusion: This study confirmed that even though all registered trials had the involvement of Portuguese institutions as a recruiting center, not all the published trials had Portuguese investigators as authors, mainly those initiated by the industry.

Relationship between an editor in chief’s commentary publications and the impact factor of cardiovascular medicine journals

Journal impact factor (IF) inflation is suggested as a problem resulting from commentaries published by the editors in chief (EiCs) of their respective journals. However, it is unclear whether this is a systemic problem across the top thirty cardiovascular medicine journals. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between the number of commentaries written by an EiC and their journal’s IF and Eigenfactor (Ef). Utilizing Spearman rank partial correlations controlling for length of service as the EiC, significant moderate correlations were found between the number of commentaries and the number of first-author commentaries by the EiC and the IF of their journal (r=0.568, p=0.001 and r=0.504, p=0.005; respectively). A weak but still significant correlation was found between the number of commentaries by the EiC and the Ef of their journal (r=0.431, p=0.020). The reason for these correlations is unclear, and whether the methodology used to compute the IF and Ef should be modified needs further research.

Time to publish? Turnaround times, acceptance rates, and impact factors of journals in fisheries science

Selecting a target journal is a universal decision faced by authors of scientific papers. Components of the decision, including expected turnaround time, journal acceptance rate, and journal impact factor, vary in terms of accessibility. In this study, I collated recent turnaround times and impact factors for 82 journals that publish papers in the field of fisheries sciences. In addition, I gathered acceptance rates for the same journals when possible. Findings indicated clear among-journal differences in turnaround time, with median times-to-publication ranging from 79 to 323 days. There was no clear correlation between turnaround time and acceptance rate nor between turnaround time and impact factor; however, acceptance rate and impact factor were negatively correlated. I found no field-wide differences in turnaround time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some individual journals took significantly longer or significantly shorter to publish during the pandemic. Depending on their priorities, authors choosing a target journal should use the results of this study as guidance toward a more informed decision.

The weighted impact factor: the paper evaluation index based on the citation ratio

PurposeThis study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.Design/methodology/approachTaking SSCI journals in library and information science (LIS) as the research object, the authors first explore the skewness degree of the citation distribution of journal articles. Then, we define the paper citation ratio as the weight of impact factor to modify the journal impact factor for the evaluation of papers, namely the weighted impact factor. The authors further explore the feasibility of the weighted impact factor in evaluating papers.FindingsThe research results show that different types of skewness exist in the citation distribution of journal papers. Particularly, 94% of journal paper citations are highly skewed, while the rest are moderately skewed. The weighted impact factor has a closer correlation with the citation frequency of papers than the journal impact factor. It resolves the issue that the journal impact factor tends to exaggerate the influence of low-cited papers in journals with high impact factors or weaken the influence of high-cited papers in journals with low impact factors.Originality/valueThe weighted impact factor is constructed based on the skewness of the citation distribution of journal articles. It provides a new method to distinguish the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field, then avoids the situation that papers published in the same journal having the same academic impact.

German Medical Data Sciences in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics – Reflections on the Fifth Volume

Since 2017, the German Society for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology e.V. (GMDS) offers the submission of full papers to the annual meetings, optional in Studies in Health Technologies and Informatics (Stud HIT) or in GMS Medical Informatics, Biometrics, and Epidemiology (MIBE). GMDS’ aim is to increase the attractiveness of the conference and paper submission process in particular for young scientists and to increase the visibility of the conference. A standardized peer review process was established. Since 2017, a 25–35% of the contributions have been submitted as full papers. A total of 177 papers were published in Stud HTI. With an unofficial journal impact factor of 1.088 (2019) and 0.540 (2020), the papers were cited with a frequency similarly to national medical journals or full paper contributions of International medical informatics conferences.