Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science—a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4–1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay—indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

Anticipating revisions in the transportation services index

The Transportation Services Index (TSI) lags two months from its release date due to source data availability, and it is desirable to publish a preliminary TSI that is advanced two months ahead. We model and forecast TSI with a co-integrated Vector Autoregression, also considering two explanatory series that do not have publication delay. Thus we are able to produce forecasts and nowcasts of the index, and we demonstrate that – during normal economic conditions – out-of-sample performance is within the scope expected by the forecast confidence intervals. We also examine the performance of the models at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the large forecast errors at this regime change are beyond the bounds indicated by our model. The practical ramifications of this methodology is discussed.

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Evidence-based decision making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face delays or barriers to being published, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is paramount to ensure effective actions are deployed. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science — a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,415 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the mean publication delay (time from completing data collection to publication) was 3.6 years and varied by conservation subject — a smaller delay was observed for studies focussed on the management of captive animals. Publication delay was significantly smaller for studies in the non-journal literature (typically non-peer-reviewed) compared to studies published in scientific journals. Although we found publication delay has marginally increased over time (1912-2020), this change was weak post-1980s. Publication delay also varied inconsistently between studies on species with different IUCN Red List statuses and there was little evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a smaller delay. We discuss the possible drivers of publication delay and present suggestions for scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners to reduce the time taken to publish studies. Although our recommendations are aimed at conservation science, they are highly relevant to other mission-driven disciplines where the rapid dissemination of scientific findings is important.

Characterization of immunization secondary analyses using demographic and health surveys (DHS) and multiple indicator cluster surveys (MICS), 2006–2018

Background Infant immunization coverage worldwide has plateaued at about 85%. Using existing survey data to conduct analyses beyond estimating coverage may help immunization programmes better tailor strategies to reach un- and under-immunized children. The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and the Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS), routinely conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), collect immunization data, yet vaccination coverage is often the only indicator reported and used. We conducted a review of published immunization-related analyses to characterize and quantify immunization secondary analyses done using DHS and MICS databases. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the literature, of immunization-related secondary analyses from DHS or MICS published between 2006 and August 2018. We searched 15 electronic databases without language restrictions. For the articles included, relevant information was extracted and analyzed to summarize the characteristics of immunization-related secondary analyses. Results are presented following the PRISMA guidelines. Results Among 1411 papers identified, 115 met our eligibility criteria; additionally, one article was supplemented by the Pan American Health Organization. The majority were published since 2012 (77.6%), and most (68.9%) had a first or corresponding author affiliated with institutions in high-income countries (as opposed to LMICs where these surveys are conducted). The median delay between survey implementation and publication of the secondary analysis was 5.4 years, with papers with authors affiliated to institutions in LMIC having a longer median publication delay (p < 0.001). Over 80% of the published analyses looked at factors associated with a specific vaccine or with full immunization. Quality proxies, such as reporting percent of immunization data from cards vs recall; occurrence and handling of missing data; whether survey analyses were weighted; and listing of potential biases or limitations of the original survey or analyses, were infrequently mentioned. Conclusion Our review suggests that more needs to be done to increase the increase the utilization of existing DHS and MICS datasets and improve the quality of the analyses to inform immunization programmes. This would include increasing the proportion of analyses done in LMICs, reducing the time lag between survey implementation and publication of additional analyses, and including more qualitative information about the survey in the publications to better interpret the results.

Mining Twitter to Detect Hotspots in Psychology

For identifying psychological hotspot topics, a mere focus on bibliometric data suffers from a publication delay. To overcome this issue, we introduce Twitter mining of ongoing online communication among scientists for the detection of psychological research topics. Specifically, we collected the entire 69,963 tweets posted between August 2007 and July 2020 from 139 accounts of psychology professors, departments, and research institutes from the German-speaking countries, as well as sections of the German Psychological Society (DGPs). To examine whether Twitter topics are hotspots in terms of indicating future publication trends, 346,361 references in the PSYNDEX database were extracted. For determining the additional value of our approach in contrast to traditional conference analysis, we gathered all available conference programs of the DGPs and its sections since 2010 and compared dates of topic emergence. Results revealed 21 topics addressing societal issues (e.g., COVID-19), methodology (e.g., machine learning), scientific research (e.g., replication crisis), and different areas of psychological research. Ten topics indicated an increasing publication trend, particularly topics related to methodology or scientific transparency. Seven Twitter topics emerged earlier on Twitter than at conferences. A total of four topics could be expected neither by bibliometric forecasting nor conference contents: “methodological issues in meta-analyses”, “playfulness”, “preregistration”, and “mobile brain/body imaging”. Taken together, Twitter mining is a worthwhile endeavor for identifying psychological hotspot topics, especially regarding societal issues, novel research methods, and research transparency in psychology. In order to get the most comprehensive picture of research hotspots, Twitter mining is recommended in addition to bibliometric analyses of publication trends and monitoring of conference topics.

How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

ANALISIS FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI AUDIT DELAY DAN KETERLAMBATAN PUBLIKASI LAPORAN KEUANGAN PADA PERUSAHAAN CONSUMER GOODS YANG TERDAFTAR DI BURSA EFEK INDONESIA

This study aims to analyze and find empirical evidence of factors that affect audit delay and delayed publication of financial statements on consumer goods companies listed on the stock exchange Indonesia in 2012-2015. Factors studied in this research are liquidity, profitability, the size of a public accounting firm and auditor opinion as independent variable while audit delay and delayed publication of financial statements as dependent variable. The sample consists of 21 companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange selected by using purposive sampling. The analytical tool used is multiple regression analysis to measure audit delay, logistic regression to measure the delay of publication of financial statements and spearman correlation to measure the relationship between audit delay and delayed publication of financial statements. Partial hypothesis test results show that liquidity, profitability, auditor opinion no significant effect on audit delay and publication delay while the size of a public accounting firm there is a significant influence on audit delay and the delay of publication. The correlation result indicates that audit delay has no significant effect on the delay of publication