Search

The use of respondent quotes to headline qualitative research papers is a popular literary device found in many academic journals. This practice has increased over the last four decades and now appears normalised within qualitative research writing. This article provides a critical analysis of this trend in academic writing and concomitant publishing. Content and framework analyses of 40 papers employing this literary device to summarise the respective studies identified (i) a lack of methodological rigor, (ii) incomplete analysis, (iii) an overall mis-representation of the wider qualitative dataset, and (iv) possible investigator bias associated with using respondent quotes as titles of qualitative research papers. This article questions the credibility of purposely selecting a single experience that reduces the wider collective experience into one deterministic statement. This article contends that such practice is antithetical to the principles of qualitative research. Recommendations are provided to better monitor this practice throughout the academy.

Objectives We assessed the proportion of primary health care (PHC) randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols published in peer-reviewed journals that published results in subsequent papers in peer-reviewed journals; and whether this proportion changed over time. Study Design and Setting We searched (last update June 2019) for RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals reporting primary outcome results for 620 protocols that were published up to 2014 and were retrieved in PubMed. We recorded the absolute number and the proportion of protocols with published results per year; and estimated whether the proportion changed over time. Results Of the 620 published protocols, 525 (85%) disseminated their results through a published RCT by June 2019. The number of published protocols was increasing over time especially after 2001. However, the proportion of protocols per year with published results in subsequent papers was decreasing over time after 2002. Specifically, the proportion ranged from 86% to 96% for protocols published until 2010 while for those published from 2011 onward ranged from 76% to 86%. Mean time from protocol to results publication was 39 months (95% CI 37, 41). Conclusion Almost one-sixth of PHC trial protocols published in peer-reviewed journals did not publish their results in subsequent papers.

Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: ( i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is ( ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, ( iii) open access, and ( iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics.

Background The prevalence and impact of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is significant. While hand hygiene is well documented as the single most effective method to prevent HAIs, research and prevention has focused on the healthcare provider's hand hygiene. Studies validate the importance of the healthcare consumer's hand hygiene, finding consumers’ hands become a reservoir and means of transmission if not adequately cleansed. Although consumer hand hygiene is an obvious safety concern across healthcare settings, it is frequently overlooked and not routinely measured. Barriers to consumer hand hygiene include inaccessible supplies, irritating agents, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness, or lack of administrative leadership/support. Our evidence-based protocol for healthcare consumer hand hygiene addresses the roles and responsibilities of all within the healthcare community. Methods We appraised the scientific literature using Dang and Dearholt's (2018) five levels of evidence with Level 1 being the most stringent. We included fifty-four studies spanning 17 years (2002-2019); thirty-one studies published during the last 5 years in professional peer reviewed journals and twenty-three seminal studies more than 5 years old. There were 3 Level I studies, 26 Level 2 studies, 9 Level 3 studies, 15 Level 4 studies, and 1 Level 5 study. Studies differed in focus, design, methods, and included several countries, healthcare systems, and settings (hospitals, long-term care facilities, and the community), with hospitals being the most frequent setting. Results The evidence demonstrates a multi-modal approach to healthcare consumer hand hygiene is most effective. Key elements include leadership to implement and maintain high levels of adherence, education, consumer preference, and verbal and nonverbal reminders. Following implementation of a healthcare consumer hand hygiene protocol, increased rates of healthcare provider hand hygiene adherence and decreased rates of HAI were noted in the literature. Conclusions A healthcare consumer hand hygiene protocol may decrease HAIs, improve outcomes, and promote healthcare consumer engagement and satisfaction.

The scientific publication landscape is changing quickly, with an enormous increase in options and models. Articles can be published in a complex variety of journals that differ in their presentation format (online-only or in-print), editorial organizations that maintain them (commercial and/or society-based), editorial handling (academic or professional editors), editorial board composition (academic or professional), payment options to cover editorial costs (open access or pay-to-read), indexation, visibility, branding, and other aspects. Additionally, online submissions of non-revised versions of manuscripts prior to seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal (a practice known as pre-printing) are a growing trend in biological sciences. In this changing landscape, researchers in biochemistry and molecular biology must re-think their priorities in terms of scientific output dissemination. The evaluation processes and institutional funding for scientific publications should also be revised accordingly. This article presents the results of discussions within the Department of Biochemistry, University of Sao Paulo, on this subject.

In their 2016 article, "Navigating a Managed Care Peer Review: Guidance for Clinicians Using Applied Behavior Analysis [ABA] in the Treatment of Children on the Autism Spectrum," Papatola and Lustig provide an overview of the managed care process, discuss the medical necessity of ABA, and offer guidance to clinicians on how to navigate the managed care peer review process. Given that the authors are employed by a large international health insurance carrier and conduct peer reviews on behalf of that organization, this response seeks to provide guidance from both the clinical and public policy perspectives that reflect best practices in the field of autism treatment. This response is not written with the intention of providing or replacing legal advice; rather, this paper offers health care providers of ABA an essential understanding of some of the laws that govern and support their efforts to secure medically necessary treatment and the mechanisms in place with which to challenge decisions by managed care organizations, health plans, and health insurance issuers that may be contrary to best practices. Finally, suggestions are offered on how to navigate a peer review to ensure optimal outcomes and, when necessary, to lay the groundwork to overturn a funding source decision that does not reflect best practices or the standard of care in ABA-based autism treatment.

Until recently, some fields of social sciences and humanities have developed without peer-review (PR) systems. Since the introduction of the PR system, non-peer-reviewed studies have been widely published and different publication patterns have emerged between peer-reviewed (PRd) and non-peer-reviewed (NPRd) articles. This study examines the patterns of PRd and NPRd papers in political science journals in Japan. According to this study’s analysis, PRd papers are mainly published by young researchers in their thirties. As researchers age, the proportion of PRd papers they publish decreases. The life cycle pattern of a researcher is structured regardless of the journals or the research methods. If the generalized norms and patterns of behavior related to PR are referred to as the PR culture, then there is the PR culture in this field that determines, “PR is a young person’s game.” Here, the PR system is expected not only to evaluate research content but also to assess newcomers in the field.

The ACR's RADPEER program is currently the leading method for peer review in the United States. To date, more than 18,000 radiologists and more than 1,100 groups participate in the program. The ABR accepted RADPEER as a practice quality improvement in 2009, which can be applied toward maintenance of certification; there are currently over 2,200 practice quality improvement participants. There have been ongoing deliberations regarding the utility of RADPEER, its goals, and its scoring system since the preceding 2009 white paper. This white paper reviews the history and evolution of RADPEER and eRADPEER, the 2016 ACR Peer Review Committee's discussions, the updated recommended scoring system and lexicon for RADPEER, and updates to eRADPEER including the study type, age, and discrepancy classifications. The central goal of RADPEER to aid in nonpunitive peer learning is discussed.

According to the Canadian Science Publishing, there are approximately 2.5 million scientific papers published each year. The huge volume of publications can be contributed to a substantial increase in the total number of academic journals, including the increasing number of predatory or fake scientific journals, which yield high volumes of poor-quality research work. The effect of this scenario is that there is an obsolete jungle of journals to flip through in searching for high-quality and relevant references for researchers, ranging from the ones who simply look for citations to cite or latest development and knowledge in a specific scientific area of study. In solving this problem, we propose a unique, elegant research paper recommender. Besides considering the topics and contents of related publications, our recommender also examines the peer reviews, authority, and popularity of each publication to ensure its quality. Conducted empirical study shows that our recommender outperforms existing research paper recommenders and contributes to the design of searching relevant publications.

See RECORDING (starts at 00:30:30). In an attempt to increase the reproducibility of contributions to a long-running and established geospatial conference series, the 23rd AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science 2020 (https://agile-online.org/conference-2020) for the first time provided guidelines on preparing reproducible papers (Nüst etal., 2020) and appointed a reproducibility committee to evaluate computational workflows of accepted papers ( https://www.agile-giscience-series.net/review_process.html). Here, the committee’s members report on the lessons learned from reviewing 23 accepted full papers and outline future plans for the conference series. In summary, six submissions were partially reproduced by reproducibility reviewers, whose reports are published openly on OSF ( https://osf.io/6k5fh/). These papers are promoted with badges on the proceedings’ website (https://agile-giss.copernicus.org/articles/1/index.html). Compared to previous years’ submissions (cf. Nüst etal. 2018), the guidelines and increased community awareness markedly improved reproducibility. However, the reproduction attempts also revealed problems, most importantly insufficient documentation. This was partly mitigated by the non-blind reproducibility review, conducted after paper acceptance, where interaction between reviewers and authors can provide the input and attention needed to increase reproducibility. However, the reviews also showed that anonymisation and public repositories, when properly documented, can enable a successful reproduction without interaction, as was the case with one manuscript. Individual and organisational challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the conference’s eventual cancellation increased the teething problems. Nevertheless, also under normal circumstances, future iterations will have to reduce the reviewer’s efforts to be sustainable, ideally by more readily executable workflows and a larger reproducibility committee. Furthermore, we discuss changes to the reproducibility review process and their challenges. Reproducibility reports could be made available to “regular” reviewers, or the reports could be considered equally for acceptance/rejection decisions. Insufficient information or invalid arguments for not disclosing material could then lead to a submission being rejected or not being sent out to peer review. Further organisational improvements are a publication of reviewers’ activities in public databases, making the guidelines mandatory, and collecting data on used tools/repositories, spent efforts, and communications. Finally, we summarise the revision of the guidelines, including their new section for reproducibility reviewers, and the status of the initiative “Reproducible Publications at AGILE Conferences” (https://reproducible-agile.github.io/initiative/), which we connect to related undertakings such as CODECHECK (Eglen etal., 2019). The AGILE Conference’s experiences may help other communities to transition towards more open and reproducible research publications.

Peer review is a key activity intended to preserve the quality and integrity of scientific publications. However, in practice it is far from perfect. We aim at understanding how reviewers, including those who have won awards for reviewing, perform their reviews of software engineering papers to identify both what makes a good reviewing approach and what makes a good paper. We first conducted a series of in-person interviews with well-respected reviewers in the software engineering field. Then, we used the results of those interviews to develop a questionnaire used in an online survey and sent out to reviewers from well-respected venues covering a number of software engineering disciplines, some of whom had won awards for their reviewing efforts. We analyzed the responses from the interviews and from 175 reviewers who completed the online survey (including both reviewers who had won awards and those who had not). We report on several descriptive results, including: 45% of award-winners are reviewing 20+ conference papers a year, while 28% of non-award winners conduct that many. 88% of reviewers are taking more than two hours on journal reviews. We also report on qualitative results. To write a good review, the important criteria were it should be factual and helpful, ranked above others such as being detailed or kind. The most important features of papers that result in positive reviews are clear and supported validation, an interesting problem, and novelty. Conversely, negative reviews tend to result from papers that have a mismatch between the method and the claims and from those with overly grandiose claims. The main recommendation for authors is to make the contribution of the work very clear in their paper. In addition, reviewers viewed data availability and its consistency as being important., Comment: published in Empirical Software Engineering Journal. Replication package at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4568517

Data collection for the purposes of analysis, after the planning and execution of a research study, commences with data input and validation. The process of data entry and analysis may appear daunting to the uninitiated, but as pointed out in the 1970s in a series of papers by British Medical Journal Deputy Editor TDV Swinscow, modern hardware and software (he was then referring to the availability of hand calculators) permits the performance of statistical testing outside a computer laboratory. In this day and age, modern software, such as the ubiquitous and almost universally familiar Microsoft Excel™ greatly facilitates this process. This first paper comprises the first of a collection of papers which will emulate Swinscow's series, in his own words, “addressed to readers who want to start at the beginning, not to those who are already skilled statisticians.” These papers will have less focus on the actual arithmetic, and more emphasis on how to actually implement simple statistics, step by step, using Excel, thereby constituting the equivalent of Swinscow's papers in the personal computer age. Data entry can be facilitated by several underutilised features in Excel. This paper will explain Excel's little-known form function, data validation implementation at input stage, simple coding tips and data cleaning tools.

Teleradiology services are now embedded into the workflow of many radiology practices in the United States, driven largely by an expanding corporate model of services. This has brought opportunities and challenges to both providers and recipients of teleradiology services and has heightened the need to create best-practice guidelines for teleradiology to ensure patient primacy. To this end, the ACR Task Force on Teleradiology Practice has created this white paper to update the prior ACR communication on teleradiology and discuss the current and possible future state of teleradiology in the United States. This white paper proposes comprehensive best-practice guidelines for the practice of teleradiology, with recommendations offered regarding future actions.

Abstract This review explains in simple terms, accessible to the non-statistician, general principles regarding the correct research methods to develop and then evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting, including radiomic biomarkers. The distinction between diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is made and emphasis placed on the need to assess clinical utility within the context of a multivariable model. Such models should not be restricted to imaging biomarkers and must include relevant disease and patient characteristics likely to be clinically useful. Biomarker utility is based on whether its addition to the basic clinical model improves diagnosis or prediction. Approaches to both model development and evaluation are explained and the need for adequate amounts of representative data stressed so as to avoid underpowering and overfitting. Advice is provided regarding how to report the research correctly. Key Points • Imaging biomarker research is common but methodological errors are encountered frequently that may mean the research is not clinically useful. • The clinical utility of imaging biomarkers is best assessed by their additive effect on multivariable models based on clinical factors known to be important. • The data used to develop such models should be sufficient for the number of variables investigated and the model should be evaluated, preferably using data unrelated to development.

ObjectivesRecently, the results of two economic evaluations were published both of which seemingly demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany. Both analyses were sponsored by the manufacturer of sofosbuvir and use a different methodology: Whereas one evaluation is based on a conventional cost-utility analysis, the other rests upon the efficiency-frontier method used by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The purpose of this study is to reanalysis the results of both economic evaluations in combination.DesignReanalysis of published decision modelling results.SettingPrimary care in Germany.ParticipantsPatients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection (treatment-naïve and -experienced, cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic).InterventionsSofosbuvir, other anti-hepatitis C virus drugs, and no treatment.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCost per unit of health benefit and cost per quality-adjusted life year.ResultsReanalysis of the results of both economic evaluations in combination reveals an unclear rationale for choosing the selected cost-effectiveness methods as well as a potential publication bias, favoring the product of the manufacturer. Based on the reanalysis, sofosbuvir is not cost-effective in treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic patients, potentially lacks cost-effectiveness in treatment-experienced cirrhotic patients, and is only partially cost-effective in treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients. Taken together, these results indicate a lack of cost-effectiveness in three quarters of the German patient population.ConclusionsTwo economic evaluations on sofosbuvir suggest, in combination, that sofosbuvir cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment in three quarters of the German patient population.

In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes.

Introduction: Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientificpublishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education,peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of theirpeers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for juniorclinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues’ work. In thisarticle, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty membersinterested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. Methods: The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM)Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted anumber of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guestexperts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a listof 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship groupengaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers thatbest described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. Results: We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorshipgroup’s top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize thesepapers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion: We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development fornovice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papersthat may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergothe peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread exponentially throughout the world in a short period, aided by our hyperconnected world including global trade and travel. Unlike previous pandemics, the pace of the spread of the virus has been matched by the pace of publications, not just in traditional journals, but also in preprint servers. Not all publication findings are true, and sifting through the firehose of data has been challenging to peer reviewers, editors, as well as to consumers of the literature, that is, scientists, healthcare workers, and the general public. There has been an equally exponential rise in the public discussion on social media. Rather than decry the pace of change, we suggest the nephrology community should embrace it, making deposition of research into preprint servers the default, encouraging prepublication peer review more widely of such preprint studies, and harnessing social media tools to make these actions easier and seamless.

Objective Examination of de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation in order to expose the impact of the company's efforts to influence the reporting of scientific studies related to the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate. Methods A set of 141 recently de-classified documents, made public during the course of pending toxic tort litigation, In Re Roundup Products Liability Litigation were examined. Results The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products. Conclusion The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.

Academics have a duty towards peers and scholars alike to engage in research work and to publish their findings. This also assists in establishing personal academic success as well as the attainment of research grants. In the past, authors used to publish their research articles for free but access to these articles was restricted to subscription users only. Recently, open access publishing has gained momentum, whereby such articles are made freely accessible online. However open access publishing comes with a price tag for the author through article processing charges. Open access may also question a journal's credibility within the academic world if improperly implemented. This is particularly so following the unsolicited bombardment of researchers' email accounts with invitations for submissions to predatory open access journals. For these reasons, authors needs to rigorously weigh the pros and cons of whether to choose a subscription based or an open access journal for publication.

This data descriptor summarizes the process applied to identify, screen, select and gather data from the content of 142 peer-reviewed papers/sources that report on the sources and impacts of recreational disturbance on coastal avifauna. While populations of resident and migratory coastal avifauna are under threat and diminishing rapidly across the planet, and particularly in association with Asian flyways, many governments are leveraging booming global demand for coastal recreation and tourism in order to deliver economic development to regional communities. The summary data shared via this data description was extracted from papers collected in a systematic literature review that was designed to explore the global literature on the recreational disturbance of coastal avifauna in order to elucidate the state of the global knowledge regarding this issue and to identify management strategies that could be applied at tropical Asian destinations to minimize the impacts of recreational disturbance and thus enhance the ecological sustainability of coastal recreation and tourism across the region. The data shared via the Excel worksheet associated with this data descriptor was extracted from peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1 January 2000 and the 31 December 2018 with the full text of the article available online. These articles were found by searching several online indexing several databases including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest and Google Scholar.

The editors of this journal meet many researchers at conferences and workshops who have tried and failed to publish the results of their studies. Having experienced these ourselves as authors, we do understand the frustration that potential authors often express. For those new to the publishing world, the disappointment of rejection runs deep, and often, despite very helpful reviews, that paper might never be resurrected again. The reality is that when a paper is rejected the reviewers or editors have detected significant problems with that paper that preclude its potential usefulness to our audience. In this editorial, we provide an overview of the primary reasons for rejection from the European Journal of Oncology Nursing (EJON), in the hope that authors will understand our reasoning and to help them avoid rejection in the future.

This paper reports on a controlled experiment carried out to investigate the differences between novices and experts during the review of papers for engineering journals. A total of 17 young faculty members with PhD degrees were given instruction on the peer review process, and then had to review a short paper, for which the actual reviews were available. The quality of the reviews was assessed using criteria developed by editors of medical journals. The evidence obtained from this study helps to identify the critical areas in which reviewers fail to perform a good review, and then to develop strategies to overcome such limitations.

Writing and publishing scientific papers have become requisites for all scientists (researchers and academics alike) to maintain their professional career. The prospects of writing a scientific paper are often regarded as somewhat daunting to the uninitiated. However a universal, well established structure format known as "IMRAD": i.e. Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion has been established. This paper details this methodology.

In naturally occurring numbers the frequencies of digits 1–9 in the leading position are counterintuitively distributed because the frequencies of occurrence are unequal. Benford-Newcomb’s law describes the expected distribution of these frequencies. It was previously shown that known fraudulent articles consistently violated this law. To compare the features of 12 known fraudulent articles from a single Japanese author to the features of 13 articles in the same research field from other Japanese authors, published during the same time period and identified with a Medline database search. All 25 articles were assessed to determine whether the data violated the law. Formulas provided by the law were used to determine the frequencies of occurrence for the first two leading digits in manually extracted numbers. It was found that all the known fraudulent papers violated the law and 6 of the 13 articles used for comparison followed the law. Assuming that the articles in the comparison group were not falsified or fabricated, the sensitivity of assessing articles with Benford-Newcomb’s law was 100% (95% confidence interval CI: 73.54–100%) but the specificity was only 46.15% (95% CI: 19.22–74.87%) and the positive predictive value was 63.16% (95% CI: 38.36–83.71%). All 12 of the known falsified articles violated Benford-Newcomb’s law, which indicated that this analysis had a high sensitivity. The low specificity of the assessment may be explained by the assumptions made about the articles identified for comparison. Violations of Benford-Newcomb’s law about the frequencies of the leading digits cannot serve as proof of falsification but they may provide a basis for deeper discussions between the editor and author about a submitted work.

Scholarly peer review is crucial to science: it not only determines what is published where, but also, indirectly, who is hired, funded and promoted. Yet, virtually every academic has peer review horror stories. Empirical evidence suggests that "peer review is prejudiced, capricious, inefficient, ineffective, and generally unscientific" [1]. An experiment at a major machine learning conference found that peer review was unreliable highlighted that the outcome of peer review can be very noisy [2, 3]. In May 2019, ACM SIGSOFT launched an initiative to improve the quality of research papers and peer reviews at software engineering venues. It has two main components: empirical standards and recommendations for improving review processes.

The plotting of data into graphs should be a mandatory step in all data analysis as part of a descriptive statistics exercise, since it gives the researcher an overview of the shape and nature of the data. Moreover, outlier values may be identified, which may be incorrect data, or true outliers, from which important findings (and publications) may arise. This exercise should always precede inferential statistics, when possible, and this paper in the Early Human Development WASP series provides some pointers for doing so in Microsoft Excel™.

ObjectiveThe ENT Scotland society (formerly known as the Scottish Otolaryngological Society) has two meetings a year and accepts oral presentations from trainees. This study aimed to identify publication rates from these meetings.MethodsAbstracts of the presentations are published in The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify which presentations from the 2005 to 2014 meetings have been published.ResultsOf the 145 abstracts found, 60.7 per cent were presenting clinical research and 44.1 per cent were related to the head and neck subspecialty. Seventy-three abstracts (50.3 per cent) were associated with publication as a peer-reviewed article; otology papers were more likely to be published than those focusing on other subspecialties (64.3 per cent, p = 0.036). No correlation was found between publication and other factors.ConclusionPresentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences.

Journal peer review lies at the heart of academic quality control. This article explores the journal peer review process and seeks to examine how the reviewing process might itself contribute to papers, leading them to be more highly cited and to achieve greater recognition. Our work builds on previous observations and views expressed in the literature about (a) the role of actors involved in the research and publication process that suggest that peer review is inherent in the research process and (b) on the contribution reviewers themselves might make to the content and increased citation of papers. Using data from the journal peer review process of a single journal in the Social Sciences field (Business, Management and Accounting), we examine the effects of peer review on papers submitted to that journal including the effect upon citation, a novel step in the study of the outcome of peer review. Our detailed analysis suggests, contrary to initial assumptions, that it is not the time taken to revise papers but the actual number of revisions that leads to greater recognition for papers in terms of citation impact. Our study provides evidence, albeit limited to the case of a single journal, that the peer review process may constitute a form of knowledge production and is not the simple correction of errors contained in submitted papers.

In addition to an overview of the issue, this article is a reminder that we are fully open access, free of charge, double-blind peer reviewed, and offer well-above-average editorial support, especially for early-career researchers. All of the editorial team work in a voluntary capacity. We are committed to finding alternative models of publishing, to reclaim the project of Open Access and key it to a different register of shared creativity and responsibility and work towards a more accessible, ethical, transparent, and creative form of scholarly communication.

The evidence suggests that mentoring is one of useful teaching methods in academic medicine but it is not clear for which outcome mentoring is effective. In this study, the authors investigated the number of original research articles that the participants had published in peer-reviewed English-language journals (as a first or a corresponding author) within one year prior to investigation and what characteristics of the participants who published at least one paper would be like compared to those who did not. In March 2015, the authors recruit early- and mid-career Japanese physicians (238 men and 240 women; mean age 40.6 years old) in a web survey. In total, 23.9% of physicians had published at least one original research article as a first author, 10.0% had published as a corresponding author, and 23.4% had a research mentor. A multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for variables selected at p < 0.15 in univariable models showed that even after adjusting for their motivation levels for clinical research, physicians with a research mentor [odds ratio (OR) 6.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.74-11.93], physicians who obtained DMSc, roughly equivalent to PhD in the West (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.72), and physicians who worked at teaching hospitals (OR 6.39; 95% CI, 2.54-16.04) were more likely to publish an original paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Having a research mentor or DMSc is associated with an experience of successfully publishing original papers in peer-reviewed journals for young and mid-career physician-researchers.

Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These “software papers” are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way., Author summary Computational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the software they write stands up to the same scientific scrutiny as traditional research studies. These 10 simple rules make doing so easier by enhancing usability, reproducibility, transparency, and other crucial characteristics that aren’t taught in most computer science or research methods curricula.

t-Testing is a common component of inferential statistics when comparing two means. This paper explains the central limit theorem and the concept of the null hypothesis as well as types of errors. On the practical side, this paper outlines how different t-tests may be performed in Microsoft Excel, for different purposes, both statically as well as dynamically, with Excel's functions.

The 7th biennial National Conference of APAHC, the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers, was held in Atlanta, Georgia, February 5-7, 2015. Speakers were invited to contribute manuscripts based on their conference presentations, and many submitted manuscripts for this special edition of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings. Some papers will appear in the December 2015 issue of JCPMS; others will appear in the March 2016 issue. All papers have undergone a rigorous peer review process. The Conference Co-Chairs, Drs. Laura Shaffer and Amit Shahane, are Guest Editors for the special issue. In this article, they provide an overview of the conference's major themes, and also discuss some aspects of conference planning.

SUBSTANTIAL: evidence documents the benefits of peer support provided by community health workers, lay health advisors, promotores de salud, and others. The papers in this supplement, all supported by the Peers for Progress program of the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, contribute to the growing body of literature addressing the efficacy, effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and adoption of peer support for diabetes self-management. They and additional papers supported by Peers for Progress contribute to understanding how peer support can be implemented in real world settings. Topics include examination of the peers who provide peer support, reaching the hardly reached, success factors in peer support interventions, proactive approaches, attention to emotions, peer support in behavioral health, dissemination models and their application in China, peer support in the patient-centered medical home, research challenges, and policy implications.

Writing your first paper for a peer-reviewed journal can be scary. You are putting your research, its findings and interpretations out to a wider and knowledgeable audience who may criticise any aspect of it. However, once you have made the mental step that you really want your work to be\ud out in the open, and you are about to draft your paper, then you need to decide to which journal you like to submit.\ud \ud This short paper raises some of the issues novice authors would need to consider. We also outline the process of submitting a paper to an academic journal based on the collective experiences of the three authors. All of us have all published widely, acted as reviewers or referees for many different academic journals and are members of editorial boards.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) may be required by researchers as an inferential statistical test when more than two means require comparison. This paper explains how to perform ANOVA in Microsoft Excel.

Plotting data into graphs is a crucial step in data analysis as part of an initial descriptive statistics exercise since it gives the researcher an overview of the shape and nature of the data. Outlier values may also be identified, and these may be incorrect data, or true and important outliers. This paper explains how to access Microsoft Excel's Analysis Toolpak and provides some pointers for the utilisation of the histogram tool within the Toolpak.

Open source software (OSS) is a software product with the source code made public so that anyone can read, analyze, and change or improve the code. The use of this software is under a license, like Apache, GNU, MIT, Mozilla Public, and Eclipse Public License. Open source software development (OSSD) provides high quality assurance through user testing and peer reviews. The quality of these products depends on the size of the product community. This paper discusses the stakeholders of the OSS community, the quality assurance frameworks and models proposed in some studies, some statistics about OSS, the problems that affect the quality of OSSD, and the advantages and disadvantages of OSS compared to closed source software. This allows us to understand how we can achieve and improve the quality assurance and quality control of OSSD.

Contingency tables may be required to perform chi-test analyses. This provides pointers as to how to do this in Microsoft Excel and explains how to set up methods to calculate confidence intervals for proportions, including proportions with zero numerators.

Background There is widespread evidence that statistical methods play an important role in original research articles, especially in medical research. The evaluation of statistical methods and reporting in journals suffers from a lack of standardized methods for assessing the use of statistics. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an instrument to assess the statistical intensity in research articles in a standardized way. Methods A checklist-type measure scale was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the statistical contents of medical journal articles and from published guidelines for statistical reporting. A total of 840 original medical research articles that were published between 2007–2015 in 16 journals were evaluated to test the scoring instrument. The total sum of all items was used to assess the intensity between sub-fields and journals. Inter-rater agreement was examined using a random sample of 40 articles. Four raters read and evaluated the selected articles using the developed instrument. Results The scale consisted of 66 items. The total summary score adequately discriminated between research articles according to their study design characteristics. The new instrument could also discriminate between journals according to their statistical intensity. The inter-observer agreement measured by the ICC was 0.88 between all four raters. Individual item analysis showed very high agreement between the rater pairs, the percentage agreement ranged from 91.7% to 95.2%. Conclusions A reliable and applicable instrument for evaluating the statistical intensity in research papers was developed. It is a helpful tool for comparing the statistical intensity between sub-fields and journals. The novel instrument may be applied in manuscript peer review to identify papers in need of additional statistical review.

How are robot ethics described in peer-reviewed papers for children-robot studies? Do publications refer to robot ethics such as: (a) gaining children’s assent, (b) providing a robot’s description prior to data collection, (c) having a robot exposure phase before data collection and (d) informing children about a robot’s semi-autonomy or not? A total of 27 peer-reviewed papers with an average impact factor of 1.8 were analysed. 63 % of the studies did not state any ethical procedures followed. In eight studies children gave their assent for the experiment; six studies described the robot to children prior to data collection; two studies provided a robot exposure phase prior to data collection and one study informed children that robots are operated machines. The outcomes indicate problematic applications of robot ethics in peer-reviewed journals and the necessity for the publishing industry to consider stricter actions on this aspect of a publication.

Extensive research has been conducted in recent years on how radiofrequency fields (RF) generated by mobile phones and other wireless communication devices might affect health. However, so far, no scientific consensus is reached. On the one hand there are reports from independent international expert groups who claim that there are no solid indications that such fields may impair human health, on the other hand there are numerous published scientific papers showing alarming effects on virtually all investigated endpoints. Members of ‘action groups’ and ‘engaged citizens’ are essentially aware of the frightening data and hence they do not understand how authorities and health agencies do not seem that much alarmed. We have performed a literature search over an approximately two year period on in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and found that 85% of the papers indeed reported adverse bio effects. However, many of the papers are deficient in one or many ways and are not seldom published in non-specialized journals with poor quality control. Looking at specialized peer reviewed scientific journals the number of papers reporting bio effects drops to about 50%. From these many report only minor (not necessarily adverse) effects, while others report effects at high exposure levels usually not found in our daily life. This explains the more reassuring attitude of expert groups and authorities. It should be realized yet that lack of consistency in scientific data does not means lack of effect and that a simple application of the precautionary approach is still needed.

Peer review is a new phenomenon in the process of internationalization of academic journals, but also a worldwide problem. In this paper, the development and practical application of peer review system are sort out, which are based on objective data research of domestic and international academic journals; the problems of network online published papers in practice are analyzed and explored by modern advanced network technology as the application tool, and how scientific orientation are they to play an effective role. The purpose of paper is in order to ensure the impartiality of the academic council, spread rapidly and use information resources, and further promote to enhance the overall level of academic journals.

In this paper, we present a step-by-step guide on how to write a paper for successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We propose a ten-step approach to the entire process of paper writing from preparation, manuscript writing, and submission to the stages of peer-review and revision. The steps include defining paper objectives, authorship, journal selection, writing routines, requirements of manuscript sections, editing and proof-reading as well as how to communicate successfully in submission and review.

The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.

Physical activity has established mental and physical health benefits, but related adverse events have not received attention. The purpose of this paper was to review the documented adverse events occurring from physical activity participation among individuals with psychological or cognitive conditions. Literature was identified through electronic database (e.g., MEDLINE, psychINFO) searching. Studies were eligible if they described a published paper examining the effect of changes on physical activity behaviour, included a diagnosed population with a cognitive or psychological disorder, and reported on the presence or absence of adverse events. Quality of included studies was assessed, and the analyses examined the overall evidence by available subcategories. Forty trials passed the eligibility criteria; these were grouped (not mutually exclusively) by dementia (n = 5), depression (n = 10), anxiety disorders (n = 12), eating disorders (n = 4), psychotic disorders (n = 4), and intellectual disability (n = 15). All studies displayed a possible risk of bias, ranging from moderate to high. The results showed a relatively low prevalence of adverse events. Populations with dementia, psychological disorders, or intellectual disability do not report considerable or consequential adverse events from physical activity independent of associated comorbidities. The one exception to these findings may be Down syndrome populations with atlantoaxial instability; in these cases, additional caution may be required during screening for physical activity. This review, however, highlights the relative paucity of the reported presence or absence of adverse events, and finds that many studies are at high risk of bias toward reporting naturally occurring adverse events.

Part 1: The International Cross Domain Conference (CD-ARES 2016); International audience; Peer review is widely viewed as an essential step for ensuring scientific quality of a work and is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. On the other hand, the actors involved in the publishing process are often driven by incentives which may, and increasingly do, undermine the quality of published work, especially in the presence of unethical conduits. In this work we investigate the feasibility of a tool capable of generating fake reviews for a given scientific paper automatically. While a tool of this kind cannot possibly deceive any rigorous editorial procedure, it could nevertheless find a role in several questionable scenarios and magnify the scale of scholarly frauds.A key feature of our tool is that it is built upon a small knowledge base, which is very important in our context due to the difficulty of finding large amounts of scientific reviews. We experimentally assessed our method 16 human subjects. We presented to these subjects a mix of genuine and machine generated reviews and we measured the ability of our proposal to actually deceive subjects judgment. The results highlight the ability of our method to produce reviews that often look credible and may subvert the decision.