Publications In High Impact Journals Research Articles

Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research

Society makes substantial investments in biomedical research, searching for ways to better human health. The product of this research is principally information published in scientific journals. Continued investment in science relies on society's confidence in the accuracy, honesty, and utility of research results. A recent focus on productivity has dominated the competitive evaluation of scientists, creating incentives to maximize publication numbers, citation counts, and publications in high-impact journals. Some studies have also suggested a decreasing quality in the published literature. The efficiency of society's investments in biomedical research, in terms of improved health outcomes, has not been studied. We show that biomedical research outcomes over the last five decades, as estimated by both life expectancy and New Molecular Entities approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have remained relatively constant despite rising resource inputs and scientific knowledge. Research investments by the National Institutes of Health over this time correlate with publication and author numbers but not with the numerical development of novel therapeutics. We consider several possibilities for the growing input-outcome disparity including the prior elimination of easier research questions, increasing specialization, overreliance on reductionism, a disproportionate emphasis on scientific outputs, and other negative pressures on the scientific enterprise. Monitoring the efficiency of research investments in producing positive societal outcomes may be a useful mechanism for weighing the efficacy of reforms to the scientific enterprise. Understanding the causes of the increasing input-outcome disparity in biomedical research may improve society's confidence in science and provide support for growing future research investments.

Web 2.0 and academic debate: Social media challenges traditions in scientific publishing.

Web 2.0 and academic debate: Social media challenges traditions in scientific publishing.

Ethnopharmacology and random screening

Dear Editor: Mankind has been using plants as food and medicine for centuries. This interaction has enabled them to understand the harms and benefits achievable through them thus laying down the foundation of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants (Ghorbani et al., 2006; Sulejman, 2007). The term “Ethnopharmacology” was first used in 1967. Since then it has been used as a valuable tool for drug discovery (Heinrich and Gibbons, 2001). Ethnopharmacology is an interdisciplinary field focusing on the scientific study and experimentation to prove and validate the traditional uses of plants and other natural products. It also includes the study of the bioactive compounds present in these products so that they can be synthesized on a commercial basis. Ethnopharmacology plays an important role in the preservation of the cultural heritage. It also identifies the harmful effects of many traditional therapies and provides an up to date knowledge and assistance to the herbal practitioners. Ethnopharmacological studies are a result of combined efforts of scientists from many fields mainly, botany, pharmacology and chemistry (Holmstedt and Bruhn, 1983; Heinrich et al., 2006). The source of information to carry out various studies comes from ethnobotanical and ethnomedical literature. Thus, ethnopharmacology proves the traditional claims in a scientific manner (Waller, 1993). The study of biological activities may involve the use of different in vitro or in vivo models. Both approaches have several advantages and disadvantages. The decision whether to use an in vivo or in vitro assay is made after considering many factors. For example if the amount of sample under study is high and sufficient financial resources are available, in vivo assay may be preferred if there are no ethical issues under debate. These assays will give a better picture of the medicinal activity of the plant. However if there is time limitation, inadequate funds or less sample volume, an in vitro assay will be a better choice in such case (Houghton et al., 2007). After the successful completion of a series of different assays and proving of significant biological activities, the medicinal plant is subjected to the drug development process (Cordell and Colvard, 2005). Besides the ethno-directed approach, the selection of plants for pharmacological screening may be based on random screening in which all of the plants belonging to any specific area are selected and tested for different activities. Thus, random screening does not require any proper justification through literature. The plants can also be selected for study if they are rich in phytochemicals or if other members of the family to which it belongs, possess biological activities. The latter is because many associated species possess similar phytochemicals (Waller, 1993; Ghorbani et al., 2006; Rout et al., 2009). This property has specially been noticed in the case of alkaloids. Random screening and phytochemical approach has been found to be very beneficial in discovering new leads especially when folk knowledge is unavailable. These prevent many plants from being ignored due to lack of supporting information (Ghorbani et al., 2006). The two methods however prove to be costly as compared to ethnopharmacological approach as considerable amount of resources are wasted during the trial and error procedure. Biological studies are usually considered to be preliminary. Due to unavailability of costly instruments for phytochemical studies, scientists from developing countries with large flora fail to disseminate their findings on large scale through publication in high impact journals.

Scientific networks and success in science

No abstract

Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business

The Dutch Economics top-40, based on publications in ISI listed journals, is--to the best of our knowledge--the oldest ranking of individual academics in Economics and is well accepted in the Dutch academic community. However, this ranking is based on publication volume, rather than on the actual impact of the publications in question. This paper therefore uses two relatively new metrics, the citations per author per year (CAY) metric and the individual annual h-index (hIa) to provide two alternative, citation-based, rankings of Dutch academics in Economics & Business. As a data source, we use Google Scholar instead of ISI to provide a more comprehensive measure of impact, including citations to and from publications in non-ISI listed journals, books, working and conference papers. The resulting rankings are shown to be substantially different from the original ranking based on publications. Just like other research metrics, the CAY or hIa-index should never be used as the sole criterion to evaluate academics. However, we do argue that the hIa-index and the related CAY metric provide an important additional perspective over and above a ranking based on publications in high impact journals alone. Citation-based rankings are also shown to inject a higher level of diversity in terms of age, gender, discipline and academic affiliation and thus appear to be more inclusive of a wider range of scholarship.

Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals

ObjectivesTo develop a method for investigating co-authorship patterns and author team characteristics associated with the publications in high-impact journals through the integration of public MEDLINE data and institutional scientific profile data. MethodsFor all current researchers at Columbia University Medical Center, we extracted their publications from MEDLINE authored between years 2007 and 2011 and associated journal impact factors, along with author academic ranks and departmental affiliations obtained from Columbia University Scientific Profiles (CUSP). Chi-square tests were performed on co-authorship patterns, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, to identify team composition characteristics associated with publication impact factors. We also developed co-authorship networks for the 25 most prolific departments between years 2002 and 2011 and counted the internal and external authors, inter-connectivity, and centrality of each department. ResultsPapers with at least one author from a basic science department are significantly more likely to appear in high-impact journals than papers authored by those from clinical departments alone. Inclusion of at least one professor on the author list is strongly associated with publication in high-impact journals, as is inclusion of at least one research scientist. Departmental and disciplinary differences in the ratios of within- to outside-department collaboration and overall network cohesion are also observed. ConclusionsEnrichment of co-authorship patterns with author scientific profiles helps uncover associations between author team characteristics and appearance in high-impact journals. These results may offer implications for mentoring junior biomedical researchers to publish on high-impact journals, as well as for evaluating academic progress across disciplines in modern academic medical centers.

The Role of Civil Society in Recalibrating Conservation Science Incentives

The Role of Civil Society in Recalibrating Conservation Science Incentives

Scientific research in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: bibliometric analysis in SCOPUS, 1991–2012

The research in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be beneficial from the collaboration between countries and researchers. In this study, we aimed to analyze the scientific research on OSA from 1991 to 2012 and to evaluate the collaboration networks between countries. We conducted a bibliometric study in the SCOPUS database. The systematic search was limited to "articles" published from 1991 to 2012. Articles are results of original research; we evaluated the following criteria: number of countries represented, number of authors, number of citations, and journal names. We determined which countries were the most productive (more articles published) and the number of collaborations between these countries. The probability of citation was evaluated using adjusted odds ratios in a logistic regression analysis. We found a total of 6,896 OSA-related articles that had been published in 1,422 journals, 50% of these articles were concentrated in 41 journals. Of the 74 different countries associated with these articles, the USA had the highest involvement with 23.8% of all articles published. The probability of citation increased by 1.23 times for each additional author, and by 2.23 times for each additional country represented; these findings were independent of time since publication, journal, or the country of the author. Scientific production on OSA is increasing with limited international collaboration. The country with the greatest production in this period (1991-2012) was the USA, which concentrated the international collaboration network on OSA. We recommended that articles should be produced with international collaboration to improve the quantity of scientific publications and their chances of publication in high impact journals.

Publish or perish: African scholarship in the field of tourism and hospitality studies

This paper critically analyses state-of-the-art practices in African scholarship on tourism and hospitality. This broad aim translates into two objectives. The first was a bibliometric analysis of the publication patterns of Africa-based scholars in four leading tourism and hospitality management journals between 1990 and 2010. The second objective identified the challenges to getting research articles published in high-impact journals. The results suggest that within the 20-year period, very few research articles were published albeit by single authors. The subject content of the journal articles focused on tourist perceptions and behaviour mostly produced by universities and institutions in South Africa, Kenya and Botswana. The research field was also generally under studied with its attendant axiomatic reliance upon Western/Eurocentric canon. Furthermore, the major identified bottlenecks to research productivity were mostly human-induced. Against this backdrop, the study argues that considerable efforts are needed to develop a culture that encourages research publications in high impact journals from an African worldview.

Science Communication: Self-Publishing's Benefits

The News story “The seer of science publishing” (T. Rabesandratana, special section on Communication in Science, 4 October, p. [66][1]) draws attention to F1000Research , a journal offering immediate publication with post-publication peer review and revision. The idea of post-publication review is not new. Fifteen years ago I launched naturalSCIENCE ( ), which offered free online publication of original research with post-publication comment. However, scientists were reluctant to contribute and publicly comment. If thinking has changed, I see little necessity for publishers or publication fees. All that is required is a science-friendly blog platform that handles scientific notation and math, edits tables, and forces standardized formatting of references. Volunteered peer reviews could be handled with standard blog comment machinery; reviewers could be required to establish their bona fides by making their identities and scientific resumes publicly available. If revised, earlier drafts could remain available for the benefit of those interested in following the development of the paper. However, most scientists currently still depend for advancement on publishing in high-impact journals that, whatever one may think of citations analysis, undoubtedly attract the majority of the better papers and do a great deal more than most low-impact journals to add value through reviewing, fact checking, copyediting, graphics editing, table editing, and rewriting. If it emerges at all, science self-publishing seems unlikely to have great impact on top journals but will divert content from the proliferating multitude of low-impact journals. Such a development could have many benefits, such as a reduction in cost of science communication; a leak-proof channel for the immediate announcement of breakthrough results; a convenient means for the dissemination of negative results; the opportunity for novice scientists to receive a wider range of advice and criticism than they could expect from the perfunctory review process used by marginal commercial journals; and a means for reviewers to receive recognition for ideas or information disclosed in the course of a review. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.66

Globalization of stem cell science: an examination of current and past collaborative research networks.

Science and engineering research has becoming an increasingly international phenomenon. Traditional bibliometric studies have not captured the evolution of collaborative partnerships between countries, particularly in emerging technologies such as stem cell science, in which an immense amount of investment has been made in the past decade. Analyzing over 2,800 articles from the top journals that include stem cell research in their publications, this study demonstrates the globalization of stem cell science. From 2000 to 2010, international collaborations increased from 20.9% to 36% of all stem cell publications analyzed. The United States remains the most prolific and the most dominant country in the field in terms of publications in high impact journals. But Asian countries, particularly China are steadily gaining ground. Exhibiting the largest relative growth, the percent of Chinese-authored stem cell papers grew more than ten-fold, while the percent of Chinese-authored international papers increased over seven times from 2000 to 2010. And while the percent of total stem cell publications exhibited modest growth for European countries, the percent of international publications increased more substantially, particularly in the United Kingdom. Overall, the data indicated that traditional networks of collaboration extant in 2000 still predominate in stem cell science. Although more nations are becoming involved in international collaborations and undertaking stem cell research, many of these efforts, with the exception of those in certain Asian countries, have yet to translate into publications in high impact journals.

Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties

This study assesses whether eleven factors associate with higher impact research: individual, institutional and international collaboration; journal and reference impacts; abstract readability; reference and keyword totals; paper, abstract and title lengths. Authors may have some control over these factors and hence this information may help them to conduct and publish higher impact research. These factors have been previously researched but with partially conflicting findings. A simultaneous assessment of these eleven factors for Biology and Biochemistry, Chemistry and Social Sciences used a single negative binomial-logit hurdle model estimating the percentage change in the mean citation counts per unit of increase or decrease in the predictor variables. The journal Impact Factor was found to significantly associate with increased citations in all three areas. The impact and the number of cited references and their average citation impact also significantly associate with higher article citation impact. Individual and international teamwork give a citation advantage in Biology and Biochemistry and Chemistry but inter-institutional teamwork is not important in any of the three subject areas. Abstract readability is also not significant or of no practical significance. Among the article size features, abstract length significantly associates with increased citations but the number of keywords, title length and paper length are insignificant or of no practical significance. In summary, at least some aspects of collaboration, journal and document properties significantly associate with higher citations. The results provide new and particularly strong statistical evidence that the authors should consider publishing in high impact journals, ensure that they do not omit relevant references, engage in the widest possible team working, when appropriate, and write extensive abstracts. A new finding is that whilst is seems to be useful to collaborate and to collaborate internationally, there seems to be no particular need to collaborate with other institutions within the same country.

Publications Productivity of Odisha in S&T: A Quantitative Study

In this study, the publications of Odisha are collected from ISI Web of Science and quantitatively analysed. Total 14,899 items were retrieved for the period 1967-2011, and there was no publications available from 1945-1966. From 1972, the publications grow steadily up to 1982 but after that the growth is irregular, then rapidly growth is notices from 2006 onwards. Authors of State have collaborated with most of the developed countries of the world. It is a good sign that the publications of new institutes are increasing but publications of old colleges have decreased. The authors have published some of their publications in high impact journals. Some areas which are priority to State such as clinical sciences, geology, environmental sciences, marine sciences, and computer sciences are neglected. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.33.4891

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Stroke: Interpretation of Subgroups in Clinical Trials”

Drs Serebruany and DiNicolantonio are repeatedly accusing the platelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) investigators, executive committee, and sponsor for trial misconduct and deliberate misinterpretations. These are extremely serious accusations that we find completely unacceptable in any peer-reviewed journal. The authors continue to present selected data from various sources according to their own preferences to provide support for predefined conclusions with a severely biased intention. First, they accuse the PLATO investigators of slicing and dicing in the analyses of the PLATO database. This is a slur on the greater scientific community because all the PLATO publications have been extensively peer reviewed by independent experts and considered to be scientifically valid and worthy of publication in high-impact journals. However, they focus on selected analyses in the initial Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review documents that were intended to probe the data in a way that would not be considered appropriate in a scientific publication and have not been subjected to peer review by external experts. The internal FDA review process deemed that these analyses and associated criticisms were not robust enough to undermine the case for ticagrelor’s approval as a superior alternative to clopidogrel. We, therefore, consider the selective use by Serebruany and DiNicolantonio of excerpts from the FDA documents to be biased and disingenuous and refer readers to the entire …

Specialty Grand Challenge – Genetic Disorders

SPECIALTY GRAND CHALLENGE article Front. Pediatr., 20 November 2013Sec. Genetics of Common and Rare Diseases Volume 1 - 2013 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2013.00036

Choosing the Target Journal: Do Authors Need a Comprehensive Approach?

Choosing the Target Journal: Do Authors Need a Comprehensive Approach?

Analysis of publication patterns in Korean library and information science research

This study assessed research patterns and trends of library and information science (LIS) in Korea by applying bibliometric analysis to 159 Korean LIS professors’ 2,401 peer-reviewed publications published between 2001 and 2010. Bibliometric analysis of publication data found an increasing trend for collaboration, robust publication patterns, increasing number of international publications, and internationalization of LIS in Korea. The maturation and internalization of LIS research was evidenced in increased number of publications in high impact journals (e.g., SSI, SSCI), growing participation in leading international conferences (e.g., ASIST, TREC), increasing proportion of Korean LIS faculty with international degrees, and high publication rates by professors with international degrees. Though limited in its evaluative power without citation data, publication data can be a rich source for bibliometric analysis as this study has shown. The analysis of publication patterns conducted by the study, which is a first step in our aim to establish a multi-faceted approach for assessing the impact of scholarly work, will be followed up in a future study, where the question of quantity versus quality will be examined by comparing publication counts with citation counts.

Why Do We Worship P < .05?

The headlines shout "medical breakthrough." The study results are significant. Regulatory approval, billions of dollars in drug sales, publications in high-impact journals, promotions, tenure and fame, all because P < .05. How did the P value get to play such a prominent role in how medicine is practiced?

Memories and Dreams

Memories and Dreams

Why Help a Growing Scientific Giant?

The pace of progress in Chinese science and technology, from high-speed rail to supercomputers, has been breathtaking. The Web of Science s Essential Science Indicators show China to be ranked at fourth place internationally, behind the United States, Japan, and Germany, in terms of the number of published papers in the peer-reviewed literature. The country comes in at eighth place in number of citations. Almost all of this has been fueled by central government funding which, in the basic sciences, has increased at an annual rate of over 20 percent per year for the last few years. It is a staggering rate of investment compared to other countries. Certainly, China is emerging as a scientific giant, and the rate of growth is the envy of many.