The 100 most influential articles in myopia: a bibliometric analysis

AIM: To identify and characterize the 100 most influential articles in the field of myopia over the last decades. METHODS: Articles on myopia published between January 1975 and March 2020 were searched through the Web of Science Core Collection database. Two independent authors reviewed and determined the 100 most cited articles. The characteristics of each eligible article were recorded, including authors, institutions, countries, journals, publication date, total citations (TCs), annual citations (ACs), research focus and article type. RESULTS: The top 100 most influential articles were published between 1983 and 2016, with 1999 as the most prolific year. The mean number of TCs was 288 (range: 193-537) and the mean number of ACs was 19 (range: 7-109). Treatment and epidemiology of myopia were the most important research focus. These articles were published in 21 journals led by Ophthalmology (29%) followed by Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (23%). The number of ACs for articles published in the last ten years was significantly higher than that for the other most-cited articles (44 vs 16, Mann-Whitney U test P<0.01). There is no difference in the number of TCs between original articles and review articles, while the number of ACs for review articles was significantly higher than that for original articles (22 vs 17, Mann-Whitney U test P<0.05). CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis can provide us with concise information about the development trend of research in the field of myopia in the past few decades, and provide an important reference for researchers to guide future research.

Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Purpose: This editorial introduces the new registered reports article type for the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research . The goal of registered reports is to create a structural solution to address issues of publication bias toward results that are unexpected and sensational, questionable research practices that are used to produce novel results, and a peer-review process that occurs at the end of the research process when changes in fundamental design are difficult or impossible to implement. Conclusion: Registered reports can be a positive addition to scientific publications by addressing issues of publication bias, questionable research practices, and the late influence of peer review. This article type does so by requiring reviewers and authors to agree in advance that the experimental design is solid, the questions are interesting, and the results will be publishable regardless of the outcome. This procedure ensures that replication studies and null results make it into the published literature and that authors are not incentivized to alter their analyses based on the results that they obtain. Registered reports represent an ongoing commitment to research integrity and finding structural solutions to structural problems inherent in a research and publishing landscape in which publications are such a high-stakes aspect of individual and institutional success.

SUCCESSION PLANNING AS A CRITICAL MANAGEMENT IMPERATIVE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

This paper conducted a systematic review of succession planning (SP) articles published over the last decade. The Systematic Quantitative Assessment Technique was used to identify 174 SP articles. The review covered five key issues: 1) Time distribution, 2) Geographic distribution, 3) Article type, 4) Data collection methods, and 5) Themes explored. The findings revealed that interest in SP fluctuated over the last decade, and that South America and Oceania were the least represented by SP scholarship. The spread between conceptual and empirical SP articles were skewed towards the former, and survey was the most popular data collection method. Five themes were identified, with the most striking finding being that that if the ‘going concern’ principle of organizations is to be achieved, management must make deliberate efforts to formalize the SP process with the clear understanding that it is a continuous, transparent and participatory process, and thus a crucial management imperative.

Clarivate listed nursing journals in 2020: what they publish and how they measure use of social media

Objectives To investigate what the most common types of articles that nursing journals purport to publish are and what they actually publish. And to investigate the extent to which academic nursing journals listed by Clarivate track alternative metrics. Methods Journals included in the nursing Journal Citation Report (JCR) journal category in 2019 described as nursing were identified and considered suitable for inclusion in the analysis. Instructions for authors were reviewed online and mention of each type of article is identified. The tables of contents of each issue of each journal published during 2019 were examined and the types of articles published were extracted to a spreadsheet into permitted article types and published articles. Likewise, the use of alternative metrics by each journal was extracted to a spreadsheet. Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analysis was applied to investigate the relationship between articles permitted and articles published. Results In the 2020 JCR, 123 journals were listed. The most common article type permitted was original research (n = 117), followed by review papers (n = 116), and discussion papers (n = 63). Original research (n = 7045); review papers (n = 1268); discussion papers (n = 1225); editorials (n = 793) and commentaries (n = 776) were the most commonly published categories of the article. Of journals examined, 108 (96.8%) tracked mentions on social media and the Altmetric score was most commonly used (75%). There was a strong correlation (r = 0.73; P = 0.002) between the numbers of articles permitted and published and a strong correlation (ρ = 0.86; P < 0.001) in terms of the rankings of the permitted and published articles. Conclusions There is a relationship between the most frequently permitted article types and those published, especially for the most frequent categories of both. Original articles, review papers, and discussion papers are the backbone of academic publishing in nursing with original articles vastly outweighing review and discussion papers. Most Clarivate listed journals now use some method of tracking alternative metrics indicating how seriously publishers take their social media profiles.

Canadian Academics’ use of predatory journals

Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian Universities. Methods Articles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles. Results All universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size. Discussion Canadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This exploratory suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

The transition of cannabis into the mainstream of Australian healthcare: framings in professional medical publications

Background Medicinal cannabis has been legalised for use for a range of specified medical conditions in Australia since 2016. However, the nature of the government regulations and the subsequent complexity of prescribing, as well as doctors’ safety uncertainties and the stigma of the plant, remain contributing barriers to patient access. Media representations can offer insights into the nature of the discourse about new medical products and therapies and how ideas and understandings about social phenomena become constructed. Focusing on professional medical publications, this study sought to investigate how medicinal cannabis is being represented in professional medical publications. Methods Using a content analysis approach, we investigated articles about medicinal cannabis from 2000 to the end of 2019 in the Medical Journal of Australia, Australian Doctor, Medical Observer, Australian Journal of General Practice, Australian Family Physician, and Australian Medicine. Articles were coded according to article type, framings of cannabis, headline and article tone, and key sources used in the article. We also used manifest textual analysis to search for word frequencies, and specific conditions referred to in the articles retrieved. Results A total of 117 articles were retrieved for analysis, the majority of which were news stories for a physician audience. Across the longitudinal period, we found that most reports carried a positive tone towards medicinal cannabis. Cannabis is most frequently framed as a legitimate therapeutic option that is complex to prescribe and access, does not have a strong evidence base to support its use, and also carries safety concerns. At the same time, the outlook on cannabis research data is largely positive. Primary sources most frequently used in these reports are peer-reviewed journals or government reports, voices from medical associations or foundations, as well as government and university researchers. Chronic pain or pain were the conditions most frequently mentioned in articles about cannabis, followed by epilepsy, cancer or cancer pain, and nausea and chemotherapy. Conclusions This analysis offers evidence that medicinal cannabis is being framed as a valid medicine advocated by the community, with potential for addressing a range of conditions despite the lack of evidence, and a medicine that is not free of risk.