Delays In Publication Research Articles

Utilizing unmanned aerial vehicle technology for environmental monitoring: Future trends, methods, and applications

AbstractThis paper provides an overview of the application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in environmental monitoring, with a focus on air pollution surveillance. Initially, the paper highlights the significance of UAV technology for real‐time air quality monitoring in developing countries and explores the characteristics of fixed‐wing and multirotor UAVs in monitoring air pollutants. It then delves into methods of measuring air pollutants using UAV platforms, including the three‐dimensional distribution of pollutants around roadsides, green belts, and street‐facing communities. The advantages of UAV measurements, such as lower costs, greater flexibility, and the ability to monitor in three dimensions, are emphasized. Finally, the paper discusses future trends in the field of environmental monitoring using UAVs, including technological advancements, evolving regulatory policies, and integration with other technologies like Artificial Intelligence, big data analytics, and 5G communication. These developments suggest an increasingly significant role for UAVs in environmental monitoring, enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and contributing to public participation and environmental awareness. However, due to the delays in publication and review processes, the most recent studies may not have been included in the literature review, leading to a scenario where the review might not reflect the latest research trends.

Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Financial Distress, Firm Size Terhadap Audit Report Lag

Recording and publication of financial reports to the public is something that must be done by companies going public. Timely publication can maintain the relevance and reliability of information in financial reports, so that it can be useful in making decisions. Companies in Indonesia still have problems publishing financial reports in a timely manner, delays in publication occur due to audit report lag, which is the time for public accountants to carry out the audit process from closing books to publication of financial reports. The population of this study are mining companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2020-2021. Data analysis in this research is descriptive statistical test, classic assumption test, multiple regression analysis, hypothesis testing, and coefficient of determination test. The results of the study stated that profitability had no effect on audit report lag, while company size and financial distress had an effect on audit report lag.

From the Past President of RUSA: Looking Back, Looking Forward

On March 4, 2020, just a few days before changes and closures associated with the global COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States and the world, our previous issue (vol. 59, no. 2) was published. It is accurate to say, though a bit of an understatement, that a lot has happened since then.This period has surely been one of the most unusual and challenging years ALA, its members, and indeed the world, have ever faced. Like each of you, and like professional membership organizations everywhere, both ALA and RUSA faced challenges of various types through this period. Let me offer my sincere apologies to all of you, our authors, column editors, and readers, for the disruptions and delays in publication and communications for the journal.

Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease

ObjectivesThis article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011–14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. Study designDescriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. MethodsThere were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. ResultsThe findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of ‘incidents’. ConclusionsThe evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable ‘incident’ and ‘case’.

Evaluation of publication delays in the orthopedic surgery manuscript review process from 2010 to 2015

A continued growth in the volume of scientific literature may strain the practice of peer review possibly leading to delays in publication. While this appears true anecdotally, exact statistics are lacking. The study goal was to quantify delays in publication in the field of orthopaedic surgery. Eight orthopedic surgery journals with available publication dates between January 2010 and December 2015 were included. Main outcomes were (1) acceptance delay (time from submission to acceptance) and (2) publication delay (time from acceptance to publication). Temporal trends for both outcomes were assessed graphically while simple linear regression was applied to assess statistical significance. 12,811 manuscripts were included that released both acceptance and publication delays. From 2010 to 2015, the median overall acceptance delay decreased from 168 (interquartile range [IQR] 115–225) to 113 (IQR 62–176) days. Similarly, there was a decrease in publication delay from 55 (IQR 26–83) days in 2010 to 16 (IQR 9–54) days in 2015; both trends p < 0.0001. Per unit increase in impact factor, there was a 19.1% (95% CI 16.1, 22.2%) increase in acceptance delay and a 15.8% (95% CI 13.5, 17.9%) decrease in publication delay. In contrast to the hypothesis, there was a decrease in delays of the peer review process in the orthopaedic surgery literature. These data are encouraging in light of the timely availability of evidence to a wide audience.

Trends in PRO reporting in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals from 2007 to 2018.

641 Background: Having standardized and high quality reporting of patient reported outcomes (PRO), especially in clinical trials that establish standards of care in oncology is important for patient centered care. This study assessed the status of reporting and quality of analysis of PROs in FDA approved drugs for genitourinary malignancies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the FDA archives to identify urological cancer drugs approved between 2007-2018. We retrieved the clinical trials that led to these drug approvals from ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed. We systematically screened for PROs and reviewed their analytic tools and interpretation methods reported in their published manuscripts and study protocols. A clinical trial was considered to include PROs if they were reported in either the primary or a subsequent manuscript. Results: We identified 22 clinical trials leading to FDA approval of urological cancer drugs between 2007-2018. Only 63% of trials had published PROs. PROs were reported in the primary clinical trial manuscripts for two drugs (9%), and in a secondary PRO manuscript for 12 drugs (54%). The median time between the primary and secondary papers was 12 months (IQR:7.5-26 months). Among the 14 published PRO papers, the hypothesis was broad in 79%, and not reported in 21%. PROs were never included as a primary endpoint of a study. Instead, PROs were reported as secondary endpoints in 5 (36%) and as exploratory endpoints in 7 (50%) studies, while two papers (14%) did not mention PRO reporting in their endpoints. The most common PRO instruments were EQ-5D (64%) and FACT-P (50%). In 92% of PRO papers, statistical analyses were conducted to account for missing data. Control for type I error was needed but not done in 57% of the trials. Conclusions: Delays in publication of PROs occur regularly in trials leading to drug approval in GU malignancies. Our study highlights the need to enhance standardization of the analysis and interpretation of PROs to maximize the value of this data for drug development and approval.

Trends in PRO reporting in clinical trials leading to cancer immunotherapy drug approvals from 2011 to 2019.

105 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a primary tool to evaluate the effect of a given drug on the health-related quality of life from a patient’s perspective and to maximize the value of patient-centeredness in drug development and approval. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the current trend in reporting, analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the FDA archives, identifying all cancer immunotherapy drug approvals between the years 2011 and 2019. We then retrieved the clinical trials that respectively led to these drug approvals from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. We systematically screened for PROs and assessed their analytic tools and interpretation methods that were collected from the published journal articles and their study protocols. If one FDA approval was supported by more than one clinical trial, we included all studies in our review. An FDA approval was considered to include PROs if they were reported in at least one of the supporting trials. Results: Thirty-seven clinical trials leading to 35 immunotherapy drug approvals were identified. More than half (54%) did not publish any PROs. While PROs were reported in the primary clinical outcomes manuscript of 4 trials (11%) and in a secondary separately published paper for 13 trials (35%). The median time between the primary and secondary papers was 22 months (range: 5 - 40). In the 17 published PROs, the hypothesis was broad in 12 (71%), not reported in 4 (24%) and specific in only 1 (6%). Ten (59%) were reported as exploratory endpoints, five (29%) as secondary endpoints, and two (12%) did not specify the PRO reporting in their endpoints. The most common PRO instruments were EQ-5D (71%) and QLQ-C30 (65%). Control for type I error was needed but not done in 15 (88%). Fourteen (82%) described an approach for dealing with missing PRO assessments. None reported on significant differences based on race and ethnicity of participants. Conclusions: Suboptimal reporting and delays in publication of PROs occur regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to enhance standardization and quality reporting of PROs to maximize the value of this data in cancer immunotherapy drug approval.

Does Facebook Post Contribute to Citation Count?: An Analysis of World’s Most Influential Scientific Articles - 2014

Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. The goal of this paper is to find out the association between Facebook and citation pattern for scholarly articles. The study was carried out to analyze the most prolific authors of 2014 from the document World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds 2014 from four subject domains Clinical Medicine, Microbiology, Molecular Biology and Neuroscience, and around 4886 papers and 719 most prolific authors were identified and their facebook and citation count studied. From the study, it was found out that articles of the most prolific authors have a strong correlation with citation whereas the association between the number of articles published by these prolific authors and the number of Facebook count they have received are not dependent on each other.

Il cantiere delle Origini: spigolature dal Fondo Novati

This article publishes the letters exchanged between Francesco Novati and the Vallardi publishing house regarding the troubled story surrounding the Origini, all of which are contained in the Novati fonds at the Società Storica Lombarda [Lombard Historical Society] in Milan. Due to the author’s premature death, the work remained unfinished until the 1920s, when it was finally brought to completion by Novati’s pupil, Angelo Monteverdi. The initial plan had intended for the work to extend from the origins to the 13th century. In a letter dated 1892, at a time when Novati was about to be named full professor and had just taken on the role of chief editor for the new edition of the Storia letteraria d’Italia produced by the Society of Vallardi Professors in pamphlet form, he promised to deliver the work in a short time. However, his numerous duties and commitments, together with his desire to produce a work that was not merely a compilation but instead rigorously scientific, encompassing the entire mediaeval Latin period as well, produced great delays in publication. In the end, realising that he would be unable to complete the volume and cornered by his publisher, who was threatening to take legal action, Novati decided to assign the 13th century to Giulio Bertoni, a scholar recommended to him by the jurist Alfredo Ascoli.

Preparing and submitting manuscripts to the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America—Express Letters

The general process for preparing a manuscript for the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America—Express Letters (JASA-EL) is the same as for any other scientific publication. First, have something new and interesting to say to your colleagues. Second, say it clearly, without ambiguity, and with a minimum of unnecessary literary flourish. Finally, and most importantly for JASA-EL, be brief. Failure to follow any of these simple rules may produce lengthy delays in publication. In extreme cases, it may result in rejection of the manuscript even after the review process has been completed! Once a manuscript has been completed, it is very important to follow the formatting requirements for the journal, both for the length and the appearance of the text and tables of the manuscript itself but also for the file types accepted by our publisher, AIP (American Institute of Physics) Publishing. The submission procedure is relatively simple. For example, neither a cover letter nor a list of suggested reviewers is...

The Teatro Cervantes in Alcalá: CHAPTER 3 The 1990s:Recovery and Restoration

The Teatro Cervantes in Alcalá CHAPTER 3 The 1990s:Recovery and Restoration John J. Allen The author writes: “In the first part of this series on the Teatro Cervantes in Alcalá I expressed my intention to follow it with a series of pieces on that playhouse as well as to publish the material separately in book form in Spanish. Delays in publication of the second piece in the series prompted me to prioritize the Spanish version of the material, which has now appeared in Barcelona, published by TC/12 in Barcelona, with the title La piedra de Rosetta del teatro comercial en Europa. To facilitate accessibility of the material to Elizabethan scholars who do not know Spanish, the editors of Bulletin of the Comediantes have encouraged me to continue the English version here, where I began it. What follows is Chapter 3.” Juan Sanz Ballesteros, Miguel Ángel Coso Marín, and Mercedes Higuera Sánchez-Pardo had saved the Teatro Cervantes from destruction and blocked implementation of ill-informed and hasty operations that would have obscured the evidence of its successive transformations. The city had sought authoritative guidance for its reconstruction and the advisory commission had fully endorsed the insistence of the three young researchers that the work “not destroy the remains of any of the three main historical phases through which it has passed.” “The policy,” the commission report said, “must not be to restore one specific phase in the evolution of this building but rather to reveal the evidence it offers of this continuous history of theatrical life.” The work of recovery and restoration could now begin. The first step in moving ahead was to get as clear an idea as possible of the physical arrangements in the initial corral stage of the playhouse. In his history of the Teatro Cervantes, José Antonio Rayón had provided a thorough account of the conversion of the rectangular coliseum into the Romantic ellipse, but what was known of the initial conversion from corral to coliseum? Rayón must have seen the coliseum structure as a single, independent building since, as we have seen, he never fully grasped the nature of the lateral box evolution. This is [End Page 197] actually quite puzzling, given that he understood the initial corral conformation of his theater perfectly. As he says, the Teatro Cervantes, “designed on the plan of the Corral de la Cruz in Madrid and similar to it, consisted only of stands at each side of the covered stage, and facing it, windows and boxes” (“habiéndose formado a la traza y semejanza del Patio de la Cruz de Madrid, no constaba más que de andamios a los lados del teatro cubierto y, a su frente, ventanas y aposentos”).1 This statement makes it clear that he was not misled, as were later investigators, by the collapsed chronology of this process in the Madrid corrales given by Casiano Pellicer. And as we have seen, he knew that rooms on alien property in the inn next door to his own playhouse on the right had been converted to lateral boxes in 1602, when the entrance to the women’s cazuela was opened there. He also knew of a royal decree, to which he alluded in his account, that had prohibited linking theaters like his with neighboring buildings, and consequently he knew that some of his own patrons who had previously accessed their boxes directly from the inn next door were by then no longer allowed to do so. Since he himself transformed the coliseum into the Romantic ellipse, Rayón obviously also knew exactly what the rectangular coliseum looked like. Given that knowledge of the whole sequence of events prior to 1830, how is it possible that he saw the coliseum structure as a single independent building, dismissing the deal made for the boxes on the north side as an anomaly? It is difficult to imagine that the elements could have come together into what seemed like a single structure before 1746, when the whole property first came under single ownership. And it seems clear that the latest it could have been accomplished was 1769, when the entire set of structures was...

I Like, I Cite? Do Facebook Likes Predict the Impact of Scientific Work?

Due to the increasing amount of scientific work and the typical delays in publication, promptly assessing the impact of scholarly work is a huge challenge. To meet this challenge, one solution may be to create and discover innovative indicators. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether Facebook likes for unpublished manuscripts that are uploaded to the Internet could be used as an early indicator of the future impact of the scientific work. To address our research question, we compared Facebook likes for manuscripts uploaded to the Harvard Business School website (Study 1) and the bioRxiv website (Study 2) with traditional impact indicators (journal article citations, Impact Factor, Immediacy Index) for those manuscripts that have been published as a journal article. Although based on our full sample of Study 1 (N = 170), Facebook likes do not predict traditional impact indicators, for manuscripts with one or more Facebook likes (n = 95), our results indicate that the more Facebook likes a manuscript receives, the more journal article citations the manuscript receives. In additional analyses (for which we categorized the manuscripts as psychological and non-psychological manuscripts), we found that the significant prediction of citations stems from the psychological and not the non-psychological manuscripts. In Study 2, we observed that Facebook likes (N = 270) and non-zero Facebook likes (n = 84) do not predict traditional impact indicators. Taken together, our findings indicate an interdisciplinary difference in the predictive value of Facebook likes, according to which Facebook likes only predict citations in the psychological area but not in the non-psychological area of business or in the field of life sciences. Our paper contributes to understanding the possibilities and limits of the use of social media indicators as potential early indicators of the impact of scientific work.

Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias

Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today’s scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress. Key words: Scientific research, peer review process, scientific publications, peer review bias, blinded peer review, scientific misconduct.

Transparency and the healthcare industry: The Sun is shining

AbstractThe demand for greater transparency in financial relationships between the healthcare industry and healthcare professionals is increasing globally, and has led to establishing government regulations and professional guidelines for detailed reporting and public disclosure of these relationships. In the US, under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, the government requires an annual report on payments and transfers of value made by healthcare product manufacturers to physicians and teaching hospitals. The implementation rules for this act were announced in February 2013, with data collection beginning on 1 August 2013. The first reports are due to the US government by March 2014, and public disclosure of the data will begin in September 2014. Concerns are growing within the healthcare industry regarding these new transparency requirements, and the likely unintended consequences, such as reduced participation of physicians in industry-sponsored clinical trials and delays in publication of clinical tri...

Monoliths: Special issue in a new package

Regular special issues concerning monoliths have always been a stronghold of the Journal of Separation Science. Typically, we issued a call for papers, collected and processed the submitted manuscripts, and all of them were then printed in a single issue of the journal. This approach worked to a certain limit quite acceptably but there was always a longer waiting time between the early submissions and publication. This is why we decided to do it this year differently. I claimed in my 2013 New Years Editorial: "We are living in the electronic era! Why not to make an advantage of that?" And we do. As a result, all manuscript submitted for publication in the special issue Monoliths have already been published in regular issues as soon as they were accepted. The first page of these papers includes a footnote: "This paper is included in the virtual special issue Monoliths available at the Journal of Separation Science website." All papers published with this footnote were collected in a virtual special issue accessible through the internet. This concept ruled out possible delays in publication of contributions submitted early. Since we did not have any real "special issue", there was no need for any hard deadline for submission. We just collected manuscripts submitted for the special issue Monoliths published from January to July 2013 and included them in the virtual special issue. This new approach worked very well and we published 22 excellent papers that are included in the issue available now at this website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1615-9314/homepage/virtual_special_issue__monoliths.htm.

A Historic Moment for Open Science: The Yale University Open Data Access Project and Medtronic

Two systematic reviews on rhBMP-2 in this issue are based on patient-level data from all clinical trials conducted by Medtronic, which were shared through the YODA Project—an unprecedented step in ...

Producing Knowledge About Malaya: Readers, Contributors, Printers, Editors, and the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in the 1950s

The creation and dissemination of knowledge about the various parts of the British Empire was an important component of the imperial mission. This article examines one of the vehicles charged with knowledge dissemination in British Malaya, the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. More specifically it focuses on the community of contributors, readers, printers, and editors that came together around the publication in the 1950s, the twilight of British rule on the peninsula. We can look at this community as a fragile web of elements or actors responsible for producing the Journal, which over the course of the decade rapidly began to unravel for a number of reasons (difficulties in conducting local research, a decline in the number of contributors as the British colonial officials left the country without being replaced, delays in publication, and a lack of skilled printers, among others) so that by the 1960s there was some doubt that the publication would survive.

Building the Field of Health Policy and Systems Research: An Agenda for Action

The lack of clarity and shared understanding regarding the scientific foundations of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) [1] potentially has very negative consequences for the field [2]. Disagreement over the value of different types of theoretical frameworks and research methods can lead to inappropriate evaluations of research proposals, contradictory reviews of the same paper, and delays in publication. Excessive time may be spent communicating broad frameworks to other researchers within HPSR, inhibiting progression to more detailed and specific conversations. Communication barriers may discourage inter-disciplinary collaboration, driving researchers back to their disciplinary safety zones, and creating potential for conflict that may discourage younger researchers who may be less secure in their career from staying in the field. As the second paper in this series concluded [1], there is an urgent need to build understanding across disciplinary boundaries. This final paper in the “Building the Field of HPSR” series turns to practical questions concerning how to remove structural barriers that currently inhibit the development of the HPSR field and thus unlock HPSR capacities. HPSR suffers from many of the same problems as other branches of health research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): major imbalances between the resources available in high- versus low- and middle-income contexts [3], acute shortages of skilled researchers (especially senior ones), and relatively few organizations that house HPSR expertise [4]. Historically, low levels of funding for HPSR compared to clinical or biomedical research have compounded these problems. Many papers provide relevant recommendations to address health research capacity issues in LMICs [5]–[8]. However, there is also a nexus of issues specific to HPSR that currently constrains development of the field. This paper builds on the analysis of the previous papers in this series [1],[9] to investigate the practical problems faced and then develops an agenda for building the HPSR field.

The Shape of Transnational American Studies: Good and Excellent News

Editor's Note for JTAS 3.2 Copyright Information: Copyright 2011 by the article author(s). All rights reserved. The Shape of Transnational American Studies: Good and Excellent News SHIRLEY GEOK-LIN LIM I begin this editorial with a sense of relief and congratulatory delight, coming out of a slew of good news. First, a piece of excellent news: in 2010, JTAS was selected as one of 85 borndigital scholarly publications (of over 5,000) to be included in the Library of Congress’s mandatory deposit program for e-publications. Copies of JTAS will be permanently housed in print form at the Library of Congress in recognition of our journal’s distinctive contribution to scholarship. On a second happy note, this year we move to a biannual publication schedule; the current issue is thus numbered JTAS 3.2. As our readers, contributors, reviewers, and numerous associate and advisory editors know, since publishing its inaugural issue in 2009, the Journal of Transnational American Studies has appeared once yearly for the past three years. This seemingly minor change in numbering, signifying the release of a second yearly issue, is in fact an excellent sign of stability for a new publication. Furthermore, the swifter publication schedule means that the journal will process submissions (including the lengthy and rigorous process of at least two peer reviews, revision, a second round of peer reviews, editorial board review, and copyediting) in a more timely manner. JTAS has attracted an increasing flow of submissions from both junior and senior scholars, and, with the open access provided by the internet, these submissions come from an ever-expanding domain of international universities and research centers. The biannual schedule, while still allowing us to choose the best pieces for inclusion, will permit our contributors to get their articles out in circulation globally before delays in publication begin to dull the cutting edge of their scholarship! The third piece of good news appears in this issue in the shape of a Special Forum. The idea of Special Forums focusing on particular US transnational subjects, guest-edited by outside scholars, and vetted by the editorial board, was first Lim: The Shape of Transnational American Studies: Good and Excellent News

Why so long?

Why so long?