Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience. Aim: This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012–2014. Materials and Methods: For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012–2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail. Results: A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1. Conclusion: The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 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. Methods: Abstracts 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: Presentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) have evolved enormously as interrelated research areas and disciplines. Many researchers interested in these areas may wonder why there are two different communities, whether they are the same concept or not, and the differences between them, which is key information for designing their research and publication strategies. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of academic papers about the differences between LA and EDM following the Preferred Reporting Method for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected 10 research works and identified 11 differences. Our conclusions are that, although both use the same data and share similar goals and interests, EDM and LA are different research communities with different origins and focuses, with their respective conferences and journals. However, there is active collaboration between the two communities and their members often tend to publish in both fields' conferences and journals. Additionally, none of the differences are apparently large enough to conclude that LA and EDM follow different paths for improving the teaching-learning process, but rather the opposite. Following a common future line, it seems that the two "sister" communities are working together with the same perspective, along with some "cousin" communities such as AIED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), L@S (Learning at Scale), Learning Science (LS), etc. in the same area that could be called Educational Data Science (EDS). We propose using the term EDS to integrate both LA and EDM with all these related communities. [Display omitted] • Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) are interrelated and sometimes interchanged terms. • Five original differences between EDM and LA have been identified. • Other six new differences have emerged since these initial five differences. • The term Educational Data Science (EDS) is proposed to integrate EDM and LA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Congresses are important for physicians to access up-to-date information. The papers presented in congresses provide access to current research topics in the field in a short time. In this study, we aimed to investigate the contribution of oral presentations (OP) that were presented at the Turkish National Neurology Congress (TNNC) organized by the Turkish Neurological Society to the literature. Materials and Methods: OP presented in TNNCs between 2000-2017 were reviewed. The distribution of papers in terms of the main headings and their institutions were determined. Then, the names and presentation titles of the researchers were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar databases in Turkish and English and their publication rates were determined. Results: In 17 years, a total of 1682 oral and 8065 poster presentations were accepted. Fourteen OPs were withdrawn. Of the OPs, 318 were in the field of demyelinating diseases (DMD), 305 on cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), 205 on epilepsy, 202 on neuromuscular diseases (NMD), 199 on headache, 183 on movement disorders, 112 on behavioral neurology, 20 on sleep disorders, 13 on pediatric neurology, and 119 on other diseases. Of the studies, 1253 were clinical studies, 226 were case reports, 130 were basic science studies, 84 were questionnaire studies, 70 were genetic studies, and 852 were prospective studies. One thousand two hundred eighty-six were from university hospitals and 338 from training and research hospitals. Six hundred six were published as articles. One hundred seventy-one were published in Turkish journals and 416 were published in SCI-E journals. Of the publications, 481 were presentations from university hospitals. Comparing the 2000-2009 and 2010-2017 presentations, presentations of NMD and sleep disorders increased, and the highest number of presentations were in the CVD and DMD groups in both periods. Presentations of headache and epilepsy were mostly published in journals. Conclusion: To our knowledge, our study is the first to analyze neurology congress presentations in Turkey. It is noted that such analyses are performed in the literature mostly for 1-5 years, and our results are similar to those of other disciplinary studies conducted in our country and lower than those of international meetings. Incentive methods should be developed to increase the number of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance formixedmethods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology. Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions: The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine a direct measure of publication bias by determining subsequent full-paper publication (P) of studies reported in animal research abstracts presented at an international conference (A). Methods: We selected 100 random (using a random-number generator) A from the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. Using a data collection form and study manual, we recorded methodology and result variables from A. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to June 2015, and DOAJ and Google Scholar to May 2017 to screen for subsequent P. Methodology and result variables were recorded from P to determine changes in reporting from A. Predictors of P were examined using Fisher's Exact Test. Results: 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of studies described in A were subsequently P after a median 19 [IQR 9-33.3] months from conference presentation. Reporting of studies in A was of low quality: randomized 27% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), blinded 0%, sample-size calculation stated 0%, specifying the primary outcome 26%, numbers given with denominators 6%, and stating number of animals used 47%. Only being an orally presented (vs. poster presented) A (14/16 vs. 48/84, p = 0.025) predicted P. Reporting of studies in P was of poor quality: randomized 39% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), likely blinded 6%, primary outcome specified 5%, sample size calculation stated 0%, numbers given with denominators 34%, and number of animals used stated 56%. Changes in reporting from A to P occurred: from non-randomized to randomized 19%, from non-blinded to blinded 6%, from negative to positive outcomes 8%, from having to not having a stated primary outcome 16%, and from non-statistically to statistically significant findings 37%. Post-hoc, using publication data, P was predicted by having positive outcomes (published 62/62, unpublished 33/38; p = 0.003), or statistically significant results (published 58/62, unpublished 20/38; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of animal research A are subsequently P; this was predicted by oral presentation of the A, finally having positive outcomes, and finally having statistically significant results. Publication bias is prevalent in critical care animal research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]