Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE?: a case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huh S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10565526 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE?: a case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.
Korean journal of women health nursing 20230926 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers-two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers-two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication-maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers-some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers' comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers' comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors' descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.
| S-EPMC7430556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to describe prenatal nursing intervention studies on pregnant women and their families published in Korean nursing journals to identify research trends and to analyze the characteristics of intervention studies. This scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We identified a research question and searched six domestic electronic databases for relevant articles. Forty-five references that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were finally selected. We extracted the data using an analytic framework, and then collated and summarized the characteristics of the intervention studies. The most frequently used research designs were non-randomized controlled trials (91.1%), and only a few studies applied a specific theoretical framework (24.4%). The participants were mainly pregnant women only (64.4%) during the third trimester (35.6%) of pregnancy. Prenatal education was the most common type of intervention (48.9%), followed by complementary therapy (37.8%) and psychosocial support programs (13.3%). The most commonly used outcome variables were drawn from the psychological domain (44.5%), although distinct types of outcome variables-especially from the psychological and physical domains-were used to measure the effectiveness of different types of prenatal interventions. This review suggests that further prenatal nursing intervention studies in Korea should expand the study participants to include pregnant women's family members, high-risk and vulnerable groups, and women throughout entire pregnancy. Furthermore, it is necessary to develop integrative prenatal nursing interventions that promote family support and participation by facilitating partnerships among women, families, and nurses before, during, and after pregnancy.
| S-EPMC9328601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Peer reviewers of biomedical journals are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks, some of which are seemingly contradictory or demonstrate incongruities between the respective positions of peer reviewers and journal editors. Our aim was to explore the perspectives, expectations and understanding of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of journal editors from general and specialty biomedical journals.Design:Qualitative study.Setting:Worldwide.Participants:56 journal editors from biomedical journals, most of whom were editors-in-chief (n=39), male (n=40) and worked part-time (n=50) at journals from 22 different publishers.Methods:Semistructured interviews with journal editors were conducted. Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. Data were analysed thematically following the methodology by Braun and Clarke.Results:Journal editors' understanding of the roles and partly of tasks of peer reviewers are profoundly shaped by each journal's unique context and characteristics, including financial and human resources and journal reputation or prestige. There was a broad agreement among journal editors on expected technical tasks of peer reviewers related to scientific aspects, but there were different expectations in the level of depth. We also found that most journal editors support the perspective that authorship experience is key to high-quality reviews, while formal training in peer reviewing is not.Conclusion:These journal editors' accounts reveal issues of a social nature within the peer-review process related to missed opportunities for journal editors to engage with peer reviewers to clarify the expected roles and tasks.Further research is needed on actual performance of peer reviewers looking into the content of peer-reviewer reports to inform meaningful training interventions, journal policies and guidelines.
| S-EPMC6886905 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6995812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:October 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (JKNS). Staring as official journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (KNS) in 1972, JKNS is a journal that is listed in the science citation index (SCI) and its impact factor has been steadily rising in recent years. The past history of JKNS was reviewed with a focus on important milestone, and the direction of future development is suggested.
| S-EPMC9452376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics. RESULTS:We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing. CONCLUSIONS:Adherence to the ICMJE's prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.
| S-EPMC6106722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the fulfilment of authors' and editors' individual disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a group of highly influential medicine journals across a variety of specialties.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Setting and participantsTop-ranked five journals as per 2017 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 26 medical, surgery and imaging specialties.InterventionsObservational analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPercentage of journals requiring disclosure of authors' and editors' individual potential conflicts of interest (CoI). Journals that were listed as followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and linked to a third party (ie, college, professional association/society, public institution).ResultsAlthough 99% (129/130) of journals required author's CoI disclosure, only 12% (16/130) reported individual editors' potential CoIs. Forty-five per cent (58/130) of journals were followers of the ICMJE Recommendations, and 73% (95/130) were COPE members. Most (69%; 90/130) were linked to a college, professional society/association or public institution. Only one journal did not have policies on individual authors' and editors' CoI disclosure.ConclusionVery few high-impact medical journals disclosed their editorial teams' individual potential CoIs-conversely, almost all required disclosure of authors' individual CoIs. Journal followers of the ICMJE Recommendations should regularly disclose the editors' individual CoIs, as this is the only legitimate way to ask the same transparency of authors.
| S-EPMC6661703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo analyse the bibliometric data of nursing journals covering general fields, specializations, skills and practices and investigate the influence of selection factors on the one-year improved SCImago journal rank (SJR).DesignA bibliometric analysis.MethodsThe study sample included academic journals in the field of nursing indexed in the Scopus and SJR database using data from 2020 to 2022. Quantile regression were performed that investigated the influence factors over the one-year improved SJR when variables were found to be non-normally distributed, characterized by extremely high kurtosis.ResultsResults from 539 nursing journals retrieved from the Scopus and SCImago databases revealed that citation index remains the main factor that positively affects differences in SJR, while citable articles only affect the early stages of quantile regression. In addition, an excessively high number of research articles may negatively affect SJR, and the influence of self-citations can initially be positive but become negative the following year. Citations continue to be the dominant factor, while the rapid growth in the number of articles and self-citations must be addressed with caution.No patient or public contributionNo patient or public contribution.
| S-EPMC11347613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Articles from open access and local journals are important resources for research in Korea and the usage trends of these articles are important indicators for the assessment of the current research practice. We analyzed an institutional collection of published papers from 1998 to 2014 authored by researchers from Seoul National University, and their references from papers published between 1998 and 2011. The published papers were collected from Web of Science or Scopus and were analyzed according to the proportion of articles from open access journals. Their cited references from published papers in Web of Science were analyzed according to the proportion of local (South Korean) or open access journals. The proportion of open access papers was relatively stable until 2006 (2.5 ~ 5.2% in Web of Science and 2.7 ~ 4.2% in Scopus), but then increased to 15.9% (Web of Science) or 18.5% (Scopus) in 2014. We analyzed 2,750,485 cited references from 52,295 published papers. We found that the overall proportion of cited articles from local journals was 1.8% and that for open access journals was 3.0%. Citations of open access articles have increased since 2006 to 4.1% in 2011, although the increase in open access article citations was less than for open access publications. The proportion of citations from local journals was even lower. We think that the publishing / citing mismatch is a term to describe this difference, which is an issue at Seoul National University, where the number of published papers at open access or local journals is increasing but the number of citations is not. The cause of this discrepancy is multi-factorial but the governmental / institutional policies, social / cultural issues and authors' citing behaviors will explain the mismatch. However, additional measures are also necessary, such as the development of an institutional citation database and improved search capabilities with respect to local and open access documents.
| S-EPMC4873189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The work of journal editors is essential to producing high-quality literature, and editing can be a very rewarding career; however, the profession may not be immune to gender pay gaps found in many professions and industries, including academia and clinical medicine. Our study aimed to quantify remuneration for journal editors from core clinical journals, determine if a gender pay gap exists, and assess if there are remuneration differences across publishing models and journal characteristics. Methods: We completed an online survey of journal editors with substantial editing roles including section editors and editors-in-chief, identified from the Abridged Index Medicus "Core Clinical" journals in MEDLINE. We analyzed information on demographics, editing income, and journal characteristics using a multivariable partial proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Results: There were 166 survey respondents (response rate of 9%), which represented editors from 69 of 111 journals (62%). A total of 140 fully completed surveys were analyzed (95 males and 45 females); 50 (36%) editors did not receive remuneration for editorial work. No gender pay gap and no difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing vs. open access journals were detected. Editors who were not primarily health care providers were more likely to have higher editing incomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-7.46). Editors who worked more than 10 hours per week editing earned more than those who worked 10 hours or less per week (adjusted OR 16.7, 95%CI 7.02-39.76). Conclusions: We were unable to detect a gender pay gap and a difference in remuneration between editors who worked in subscription-based publishing and those in open access journals. More than one third of editors surveyed from core clinical journals did not get remunerated for their editing work.
| S-EPMC7836083 | biostudies-literature