Publication In Higher Impact Factor Journals Research Articles

Large Publication Gap for Gynecologic Cancers in High-Impact Factor Journals.

To analyze research publication trends in high-impact factor journals, comparing gynecologic cancers with other cancers from 2000 to 2018. Abstracts from the 55 journals with the highest impact factors, as measured by Clarivate, from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from PubMed. We developed an algorithm to search the title of the abstract to determine whether the abstract was about cancer and to identify the cancer type. The algorithm was validated against the gold standard of human review in 1,143 abstracts. Article proportion was compared with site-specific incidence, mortality, and lethality from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database using scatterplots and nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We identified 128,377 articles; 31,045 (24.1%) were about cancer and 1,189 (3.8%) were about gynecologic cancers. Gynecologic cancers (ovarian, cervical, and uterine) were all poorly represented in high-impact factor journals compared with their incidence, mortality, and lethality. Ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers ranked in the bottom half of Article-to-Lethality scores ( P <.01 for all comparisons). Analyses of the trends for gynecologic cancers over the past 18 years showed no change over time in Article-to-Lethality scores. Comparison of rankings by lethality with rankings by funding indicates relative underfunding of the gynecologic cancers. Research publications in high-impact factor journals by cancer site are not proportionate with individual cancer burden on society. Gynecologic cancers are significantly underrepresented in research publications relative to their disease burden, indicating a disparity that persists over the past 18 years. Relative underfunding of gynecologic cancers likely contributes to this publication gap.

Understanding disparities in research publications in high-impact factor journals by cancer site.

e13626 Background: Prior studies have shown disparities in funding allocation for gynecologic cancers after accounting for their mortality, incidence, and person-years of life lost. Whether disparities exist in high impact factor journals is unknown. The purpose of this study is to analyze research publication trends in high impact factor journals comparing gynecologic cancers to other cancers from 2000 to 2018. Methods: Abstracts from the top 55 impact factor journals, as measured by Clarivate, from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from PubMed. We developed an algorithm to search the title of the abstract to determine whether the abstract was about cancer and identify the cancer type. The algorithm was validated against the gold standard of human review in 1143 abstracts and yielded a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 100% for identifying cancer abstracts and an accuracy of 95% for identifying cancer site. Using NCI’s SEER database, site-specific mortality to incidence ratios were calculated and multiplied by person-years of life lost to derive cancer-specific lethality for 19 cancer sites. An article proportion for each cancer site was calculated. Article proportion was divided by lethality to calculate Article to Lethality scores for gynecologic malignancies and compared to the other cancer sites. Results: We identified 128,377 articles; 31,045 (24%) were about cancer and 1,189 (3.8%) were about gynecologic cancers. Ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers ranked 12th (score 21.9), 13th (20.9), and 18th (10.1) out of 19 cancers for median Article to Lethality scores. The highest scores were for breast cancer (score 427) and prostate cancer (234). Ovarian and uterine cancers had lower Article to Lethality scores compared to 11 other cancers, while cervical cancer was lower than 16 other cancers (p &lt; 0.01 for all comparisons). Analyses of the trends for gynecologic cancers over the last 18 years showed no change in Article to Lethality scores. Conclusions: Article to Lethality scores for gynecologic cancers are significantly lower than other cancer sites, indicating a disparity in research publications in high impact factor journals that persists over the last 18 years. Increased funding is essential to ensure continued advancement and progress in research for women with gynecologic cancers.[Table: see text]

Big splashes & ripple effects: a narrative review of the short- & long-term impact of publications supported by an NIH CTSA pediatrics program.

Background and ObjectiveThis review examines a promising new framework for analyzing outputs of pediatric research in the context of translational advancement. We demonstrate a method for evaluating the impact of an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award’s (CTSA) Pediatrics Program through publications that have emerged from supported research. The Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program provides training, funding, and infrastructure to ensure that researchers have the resources to advance pediatric health. Internal evaluations found that research supported by this program is exceptionally impactful within the academic community and commands high interest within the lay community. Therefore, we examined the impact of this research in both traditional academic and broader community spheres using bibliometrics—the study of supported publications. Bibliometrics describe a pivotal stage in the translational process of bringing scientific discoveries to clinical/community use and include both academic citations and ‘altmetric’ or non-academic attention. These complementary approaches combine to shed light on the short- and long-term impact of the research on segments of the translational pipeline, including academic literature, community discourse, technological advancement, and public health policy.MethodsThe authors identified a portfolio of 250 articles supported by the Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program from 2007–2020. We utilized various bibliometrics to analyze both short-term attention, or ‘splash’ made by articles, and long-term influence, or ‘ripples’ made across both academic and public spheres.Key Content and FindingsThe short-term splash of the portfolio was indicated through publication in high-impact factor journals, peer faculty recommendations, and Mendeley readership, as well as by early altmetric attention in news stories, blogs, and Twitter posts. The portfolio’s long-term ripples were demonstrated by high absolute and relative rates of academic citation and by downstream altmetric influence in public-facing documents, including Wikipedia articles, patent applications, and policy documents.ConclusionsThis article reviews a useful bibliometric methodology for illustrating the waves of impact made by pediatric research. Whereas splash provides a picture of early interest in a publication, a preliminary indicator of eventual utility and impact, ripples provide a measure of the cumulative influence of an article over time. Both reflect opportunities for a line of research to advance along the translational spectrum.

Background styles in systematic review articles are not related to the publication in high-impact-factor journals: A meta-epidemiological study.

To clarify the styles used in background sections of systematic reviews (SR) and to identify which styles if any were related to the publication in high-impact-factor (HIF) medical journals. This was a cross-sectional study for original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018. We randomly included 90 articles from top 10 HIF journals and 90 from others, respectively. We conducted a content analysis to classify the background styles. We assessed the factors associated with the publication in HIF journals. We found 6 categories. We defined 6 categories as follows: Update of prior SR, New in scope than prior SR, Higher quality than prior SR, Completely new SR, Limitations of primary studies only, and Not presenting unknown in prior SR or primary studies. All 6 categories were not related to the publication in HIF journals. We found 6 categories of styles in background sections of SR, none of which however were related to publication in HIF journals. SR authors may wish to use any of these categories to communicate the importance of their research questions.

Every fifth published metagenome is not available to science.

Have you ever sought to use metagenomic DNA sequences reported in scientific publications? Were you successful? Here, we reveal that metagenomes from no fewer than 20% of the papers found in our literature search, published between 2016 and 2019, were not deposited in a repository or were simply inaccessible. The proportion of inaccessible data within the literature has been increasing year-on-year. Noncompliance with Open Data is best predicted by the scientific discipline of the journal. The number of citations, journal type (e.g., Open Access or subscription journals), and publisher are not good predictors of data accessibility. However, many publications in high–impact factor journals do display a higher likelihood of accessible metagenomic data sets. Twenty-first century science demands compliance with the ethical standard of data sharing of metagenomes and DNA sequence data more broadly. Data accessibility must become one of the routine and mandatory components of manuscript submissions—a requirement that should be applicable across the increasing number of disciplines using metagenomics. Compliance must be ensured and reinforced by funders, publishers, editors, reviewers, and, ultimately, the authors.

Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study.

The journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Surgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (<2), median (2-3) and high IF (>3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed. The median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P<0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P<0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors. Publication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.

Environment for nursing scholarship and journal impact factors in Taiwan

Universities are seeking objective measures to assess their faculty members' research output in order to improve their national and international standing. Despite concerns, many have adopted the impact factor of journals for this purpose. The objective of this study was to explore the conditions that have been created within Taiwan as a result of such national and institutional policies. A case study design was used. Information was sought from five senior faculty members, who responded to a questionnaire with items derived from the literature. A key participant provided context within the country. The data were summarized and described. The respondents confirmed the presence of governmental and university policies for publication in high-impact factor journals; they saw some positive aspects, yet described the obstacles faced by many scholars, felt that the policies led to competition rather than cooperation, and viewed national, compared to international, publications in opposing terms. The findings are discussed within the context of current nursing literature. It is recommended that, where impact factors are used, they not be the only quality measure. A larger and more representative study is also recommended.

Trends in the application of dynamic allocation methods in multiarm cancer clinical trials

6550 Background: In multiarm oncology clinical trials there is always a risk that the treatment groups could be imbalanced for a prognostic factor, potentially biasing treatment comparisons and compromising the validity of the results. Stratified randomization (SR) is frequently used to reduce imbalances. Dynamic allocation (DA), also known as minimization, is a controversial and largely nonrandom method of treatment allocation that can incorporate more prognostic factors than traditional SR methods. Proponents argue that results from clinical trials implementing DA are potentially more credible, while opponents claim there is little added benefit, increased complexity, and the statistical properties are not fully understood. We reviewed multi-arm cancer trials published between 1995–2005 to describe trends in the application of DA methods. Methods: 476 clinical trials with at least 100 patients in each arm, published in 13 major journals were reviewed. Manuscripts were grouped by impact factor (IF) of the publishing journal into low (&lt;10), medium (10–20) and high (20+) categories. Trial-specific factors associated with publication were collected along with details of allocation method. Results: 112 (24%) trials described using DA for assigning patients to treatment. 79% of trials employing DA methods included 3 or more stratification factors, compared with only 36% of other trials (p &lt; 0.001). Reported use of DA was similar between industry and non-industry sponsored studies (p = 0.85) and by geographical region (p = 0.73). Of 364 trials which did not describe using DA, 103 (28%) reported using SR, but a statement describing stratification on at least one factor was included in 291 (80%) trials. A trend was observed that reported use of both DA (p = 0.072) and SR (p = 0.067) methods increased over time. DA was associated with publication in higher IF journals univariately (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.11–2.52, p=0.014) and after adjusting for identified prognostic factors (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.06–2.73, p = 0.028). No association between SR and higher IF journal publication was observed (p = 0.52 univariately and p = 0.44 adjusting for other factors). Conclusions: DA is frequently used in cancer clinical trials. Reported use of DA, but not SR, is associated with publication in high IF journals. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Neutralizing the Impact Factor Culture

In the letter “Painful publishing” by M. Raff et al. (4 July, p. [36][1]) and in the accompanying Editorial “Reviewing peer review” by B. Alberts et al. (4 July, p. [15][2]), the authors succinctly outline the pressure being felt by both junior and senior scientists to publish in highprofile journals. Although not defined by the authors, high-profile journals are generally identified by and have become synonymous with Thomson high-impact factor scores. A common, but deeply flawed, practice has been to equate the importance and quality of a paper with the impact factor score of the journal in which it is published. In many cases, decisions on obtaining jobs, seeking tenure and receiving promotions and grants are being based on the impact factor of the journals in which an individual publishes. This creates enormous pressure to publish in high-impact factor journals. This situation has become so extreme that in some institutions the impact factor of each published paper in a scientist's bibliography is being requested and/or checked, junior scientists have become reluctant to initiate experiments that may not lead to publication in high-impact factor journals, and candidates for certain positions are being told that their chances are slim if they don't have papers in Science , Nature , or the like. As a result, many scientists are now more concerned about building high-impact factor bibliographies than their science. The adverse effects of the impact factor culture must be reversed before more damage is done to the orderly process of scientific discovery. Although there may be no way of stopping computer-generated evaluation of journals and published papers, the scientific community certainly can control its use. To accomplish this, several concrete steps should be taken. First, each institution should make it clear, in a written statement, that it will not use the impact factor or the like to evaluate the contributions and accomplishments of its staff. Second, the heads of laboratories should prepare similar written statements and in addition discuss in depth with their fellows the importance of solid step-by-step science. Third, the editors of journals published by professional societies, joined by as many other journal editors as are willing, should indicate that they will not advertise, massage, or even state the impact factor score of their respective journals. By means such as these, it might be possible to put science back on the right track. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.321.5885.36a [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1162115