Search

Objectives/hypothesis: To identify the most influential publications in laryngology since 2000., Study Design: Modified Delphi process., Methods: Samples of laryngologists drawn from editors of leading journals, organization officers, and thought leaders were invited to participate in a modified Delphi identification of influential laryngology papers. Influential was defined as follows: yielding meaningful practice changes, catalyzing further work as a foundation for an important topic, altering traditional views, or demonstrating durability over time. Quality and validity were not among the selection criteria. Each participant nominated 5 to 10 papers in Round 1. These nominations, augmented with papers from bibliometric analysis, were narrowed further in Round 2 as participants identified their top 20. The 40 papers with the most Round 2 votes were discussed by video conference and then subjected to Round 3 voting, with each participant again selecting their top 20 most influential papers. Final results were collated by the number of Round 3 votes., Results: Sixteen of 18 invited laryngologists participated overall (all 16 in Rounds 1 and 3; 14 in Round 2). Twenty-one papers were identified as most influential. One paper appeared on all 16 Round 3 lists; three papers with eight (50%) votes each were lasted to make the list. Eleven of these 21 focused on voice; three each related to cancer, airway, and swallowing; and one encompassed all of these clinical areas., Conclusions: This list of 21 influential laryngology papers serves to focus further research, provides perspective on recent advances within the field, and is an educational resource for trainees and practicing physicians., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 132:406-412, 2022., (© 2021 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

One of the tasks required of most statistics researchers and academic faculty is to publish their innovative ideas in the peer‐reviewed literature. In this paper, we provide guidance about the different stages of the process as experienced authors and offer advice from those who hold the decision about the success or failure of these papers, namely the editors of applied statistics journals. The paper is organized into four sections focusing on the different stages of publishing: (1) Planning what to write about, where to submit and how to organize the paper; (2) The process of writing the paper; (3) Interpreting and responding to peer‐reviews from the journal editors and referees to prepare for resubmission; and (4) General comments about the publication process, including collaboration and mentoring. Each section starts with fundamentals provided by the moderators (C.A.C. and L.L.) on key aspects to consider on each topic and then is followed with discussion from some current and past editors of impactful journals in the field of applied statistics. Our hope is that this collection of insights may help accelerate learning about the process for young researchers and help all researchers to understand some of the important often‐unspoken aspects of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta‐research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID‐19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of quantifying the impact and quality of research articles, discussing traditional metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore, and the H-index. It also introduces alternative metrics (Altmetrics) like the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), emphasizing their role in measuring the reach and success of research articles through social media engagement.

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre‐trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text‐based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT‐3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of economics is undergoing a paradigm shift, marked by what has become known as the "credibility revolution." This shift has impacted what economists write about, how they organize and structure their papers, and where they chose to publish their findings. This paper traces publishing trends from the 100 most cited papers in the decades from 1970 to 2019 (500 papers in total). Data suggest that the field has become more empirical and that the structure of papers is more standardized, often following a format that is closer to that of scientific papers. Increases in the percentage of women first‐listed authors and the gender ratio are noted and found to be correlated with emerging fields. Most interestingly, a decreasing number of highly cited papers are from what are generally considered the "Top 5" journals in economics, suggesting increasing importance of articles published outside of the Top 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article calls on authors to submit papers or articles for the William M. Jones Award to be presented at the 2024 American Culture Association annual meeting.

The article offers information on how to submit articles to be published in the journal, including the topics accepted and the email address for submission.

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on following papers being accepted for publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal including survey of US academic libraries highlighting the COVID-19 experience.

An editorial is presented the Pentatone label's deliberate development of a Mahler cycle with the Czech Philharmonic and conductor Semyon Bychkov, emphasizing the release of Mahler's second symphony as the third installment, and highlighting Bychkov's deep connection to the work throughout his career. The topics include the orchestral collaboration's significance, Bychkov's history with Mahler's second symphony, and the hope for the completion of the cycle despite economic uncertainties.

An editorial is presented clarifying the scope of Nursing Inquiry and the types of manuscripts that align with its aims, including discursive papers, critical analyses, and theoretical debates on nursing and healthcare practices. It emphasizes the importance of avoiding a prescribed formula and standardized formats, and encourages authors to engage in critical reflection and present well-developed narrative logic in their submissions to advance the discipline's shared body of knowledge.

The article presents the discussion on accepting the publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal. Topics include survey of health information seeking by cancer patients indicating some problems over medical explanations and terminology; and development of a validated search filter for Ovid Embase for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

An introduction is presented in which author discusses articles on topics including focuses on promoting environmental sustainability and an opportunity to share projects related to improve the environmental footprint of critical care.

The article presents the discussion on papers being accepted in the publication of the Health Information and Libraries Journal including qualitative study of the health Information seeking behaviour of adolescent girls in Iran.

The authors present guidelines for nursing professionals in converting their conference presentation into a manuscript for submission to the journal. Considerations as outlined by the Medical Librarians association are its purpose, content and organization, style and conversion of the presentation. The authors also advises about the possible outcomes of a submission like the difficulty of a paper to get accepted and the need to respond to suggestions and comments by editors and reviewers.

This means that, at any time in your career, whether you are a scientist, a physician, or a health professional, having a peer-reviewed paper published will be among the most significant single events that happen in your working life: an achievement every professional is eager to experience. The relevance and impact of the publication of a scientific article have a meaning beyond the simple quotation on PubMed. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION The author contributed substantively to the design, writing, and editing of the Editorial thoughts and approved the final version submitted for publication. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents the discussion on nurse scientists understanding and supporting the importance of interdisciplinary research. Topics include knowledge of other disciplines having the expertise needed for answering increasingly complex questions about health and illness; and nursing science being built on a strong foundation of knowing being necessary for improving nursing practice.

In the article, the author calls for papers on the topics of organizational risk and the COVID-19 pandemic, with submission deadline scheduled on February 1, 2022.

The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self‐citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self‐citations have been studied at length, little is known on national‐level self‐references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full‐text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself‐references (NSRs) in terms of their in‐text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a perspective on the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on publishing in nutrition and dietetics. The author discusses the importance of originality of research papers and their value in terms of formulating critical knowledge and evidence base. Factors influencing editor behavior and decision for accepting research for publication include novelty and timeliness of manuscripts, originality of findings, ethics and integrity, methodological quality and quality of abstracts and title.

The article presents the discussion on significant increase in the submission and publication of research papers in nutrition and dietetics which was associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Topics include recruited to participate in a study which utilised an online food frequency questionnaire to look at nutrient intake and to self‐report for having diagnosis of type‐2 diabetes; and food frequency questionnaires having low validity while assessing intakes of micronutrients and trace elements.

Nevertheless, reasons are not justifications, and it is the responsibility of journal editors to try to recognise and correct such unacceptable publication practices. While slicing up the data from a single study to make multiple papers (salami publication) may constitute publication impropriety, journal editors also have to be alert for fraudulent activities. [Extracted from the article]

Adequate blood supply, a prerequisite for flap survival after grafting, makes angiogenesis of the flap the biggest problem to be solved. Researches have been conducted around vascularisation in correlation with flap grafting. However, bibliometric analyses systematically examining this research field are lacking. As such, we herein sought to conduct comprehensive comparative analyses of the contributions of different researchers, institutions, and countries to this research space in an effort to identify trends and hotspots in angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting. Publications pertaining to angiogenesis and vascularisation in the context of flap grafting were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. References were then analysed and plotted using Microsoft Excel 2019, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace V. In total, 2234 papers that were cited 40 048 times (17.63 citations/paper) were included in this analysis. The greatest number of studies were from the United States, with these studies exhibiting both the highest number of citations (13 577) and the greatest overall H‐index (60). For The institutions that published the greatest number of studies were WENZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY (681), while UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG has the highest number of citations (1458), and SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY holds the greatest overall H‐index (20). The greatest number of studies in this research space were published by Gao WY, while Horch RE was the most commonly cited researcher in the field. The VOS viewer software clustered relevant keywords into three clusters, with clusters 1, 2, 3, and 4 corresponding to studies in which the keywords 'anatomy', 'survival', 'transplantation', 'therapy' most frequently appeared. The most promising research hotspot‐related terms in this field included 'autophagy', 'oxidative stress', 'ischemia/reperfusion injury', which exhibited a most recent average appearing year (AAY) of 2017 and after. Generally speaking, the results of this analysis indicate that the number of articles exploring angiogenesis and flap‐related research has risen steadily, with the United States and China being the two countries publishing the greatest proportion of studies in this field. The overall focus of these studies has shifted away from 'infratest and tissue engineering' towards 'mechanisms'. In the future, particular attention should be paid to emerging research hotspots, which include 'ischemia/reperfusion injury' and treatments for promoting vascularization, such as 'platelet‐rich plasma'. In light of these findings, funding agencies should continue increasing their investment in the exploration of the concrete mechanisms and interventional therapeutic relevance of angiogenesis during flap transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the professional responsibility of contributing to the literature and emphasizes the importance of promoting research activity among trainees. Topics include the role of academic activities during residency, the benefits of writing papers for professional growth and patient care; and the need for institutions to provide support and infrastructure for trainees to engage in research for contributing to the literature throughout their careers.

Novel ideas often experience resistance from incumbent forces. While evidence of the bias against novelty has been widely identified in science, there is still a lack of large‐scale quantitative work to study this problem occurring in the prepublication process of manuscripts. This paper examines the association between manuscript novelty and handling time of publication based on 778,345 articles in 1,159 journals indexed by PubMed. Measuring the novelty as the extent to which manuscripts disrupt existing knowledge, we found systematic evidence that higher novelty is associated with longer handling time. Matching and fixed‐effect models were adopted to confirm the statistical significance of this pattern. Moreover, submissions from prestigious authors and institutions have the advantage of shorter handling time, but this advantage is diminishing as manuscript novelty increases. In addition, we found longer handling time is negatively related to the impact of manuscripts, while the relationships between novelty and 3‐ and 5‐year citations are U‐shape. This study expands the existing knowledge of the novelty bias by examining its existence in the prepublication process of manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The growing interest in knowledge translation and implementation science, both in clinical practice and in health professions education (HPE), is reflected in the number of studies that have sought to address what are believed to be evidence‐practice gaps. Though this effort may be intended to ensure practice improvements are better aligned with research evidence, there is a common assumption that the problems researchers explore and the answers they generate are meaningful and applicable to practitioner needs. Methods: This Mythology paper considers the nature of problems from HPE as the focus of HPE research and the ways in which they may or may not be aligned. The authors argue that, in an applied field such as HPE, it is vital that researchers better understand how their research problems relate to practitioner needs and what the limitations on evidence uptake might be. Not only can this establish clearer paths between evidence and action, but it also requires a rethink of much of knowledge translation and implementation science thinking and practice. Results: The authors explore five myths: whether everything in HPE is a problem; whether practitioner needs involve problem solving; whether practitioner problems are resolvable with sufficient evidence; whether researchers effectively target practitioner problems; and whether studies that focus on solving practitioner problems make significant contributions to the literature. Conclusions: To advance the conversation on the connections between problems and HPE research, the authors propose ways in which knowledge translation and implementation science might be approached differently. In the latest instalment of Medical Education Mythology, Thomas and Ellaway explore five myths surrounding "problems" in health professional education research and their impact on using research to guide practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meaningful community engagement process involves focusing on the community needs, building community capacity and employing culturally tailored and community‐specific strategies. In the current practices of community‐engaged health and wellness research, generally, community engagement activities commence with the beginning of a particular research project on a specific topic and end with the completion of the project. The outcomes of the community engagement, including the trust, partnership and contribution of the community to research, thus remain limited to that specific project and are not generally transferred and fostered further to the following project on a different topic. In this viewpoint article, we discussed a philosophical approach to community engagement that proposes to juxtapose community engagement for the specific short‐term research project and the overarching long‐term programme of research with the finite game and infinite game concepts, respectively. A finite game is a concept of a game where the players are known, rules are fixed and when the agreed‐upon goal is achieved, the game ends. On the other hand, in infinite games, the players may be both known and unknown, have no externally fixed rules and have the objective of continuing the game beyond a particular research project. We believe community engagement needs to be conducted as an infinite game that is, at the programme of research level, where the goal of the respective activities is not to complete a research project but to successfully engage the community itself is the goal. While conducting various research projects, that is, finite games, the researchers need to keep an infinite game mindset throughout, which includes working with the community for a just cause, building trust and community capacity to maximise their contribution to research, prioritising community needs and having the courage to lead the community if need be. Patient or Public Contribution: While preparing this manuscript, we have partnered actively with community champions, activists, community scholars and citizen researchers at the community level from the very beginning. We had regular interactions with them to get their valuable and insightful inputs in shaping our reflections. Their involvement as coauthors in this paper also provided a learning opportunity for them and facilitated them to gain insight on knowledge engagement. All authors support greater community/citizen/public involvement in research in an equitable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend. Methods: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons. Results: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors. Conclusions: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study presents and explains the phenomenon of indexjacking, which involves the systematic infiltration of hijacked journals into international indexing databases, with Scopus being one of the most infiltrated among these databases. Through an analysis of known lists of hijacked journals, the study identified at least 67 hijacked journals that have penetrated Scopus since 2013. Of these, 33 journals indexed unauthorized content in Scopus and 23 compromised the homepage link in the journal's profile, while 11 did both. As of September 2023, 41 hijacked journals are still compromising the data of legitimate journals in Scopus. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus is a challenge for scientific integrity due to the legitimization of unreliable papers that have not undergone peer review and compromises the quality of the Scopus database. The presence of hijacked journals in Scopus has far‐reaching effects. Papers published in these journals may be cited, and unauthorized content from these journals in Scopus is thus imported into other databases, including ORCID and the WHO COVID‐19 Research Database. This poses a particular challenge for research evaluation in those countries, where cloned versions of approved journals may be used to acquire publications and verifying their authenticity can be difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses special issues, also referred to as thematic issues, monographic issues, or supplements, a mode of scientific journal publishing that has rarely been studied. It presents a bibliometric analysis of the production of journals in the field of communication in the period 2015–2019 and studies the impact of the publication of special issues in this field. The sample analysed includes 21,458 articles and reviews, 524 special issues, 418 publishers, and 94 journals. The study considers the presence of special issues in communication journals and the distribution and number of papers published in them and compares the impact of papers published in this mode with papers published in regular issues. The results reveal that 19% of articles and reviews published in the period studied appeared in special issues, which generally contain the same number of articles as regular issues. Moreover, 75% of journals achieved a higher average impact factor with articles published in special issues than they did with articles in regular issues. It is concluded that the publication of special issues appears to offer the potential benefits of attracting submissions, increasing profits, and improving impact, although it also has disadvantages. A reflection is offered on the strengths and weaknesses of this publishing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning is considered an important issue in end‐of‐life care for older adults. The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic has interrupted the healthcare system and end‐of‐life care tremendously. This review aimed to explore available articles on advance care planning amid the pandemic and analyze qualitatively. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched on February 2021 using the relevant keywords. Retrieved articles were screened applying inclusion criteria. Any article describing advance care planning during the COVID‐19 era was included. A qualitative content analysis was conducted. In total, 20 articles incorporating 5542 participants from five countries were included. Among the articles, eight were primary studies and the rest were perspective papers or secondary analysis. From the qualitative content analysis six major themes emerged namely palliative care, lack of coordination among acute care, hospital palliative care, and long‐term care, community‐based advance care planning, real‐time dissemination of scientific information on the regional pandemic situation, online system and legislation. The COVID‐19 pandemic had decreased the uptake of advance care planning. Findings of the review suggested simplification of the procedure regarding advance care planning, implementation of community‐based advance care planning and utilization of online resources to enhance the process. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 779–787. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overgeneralisation may happen because most studies on data publishing for multiple sensitive attributes (SAs) have not considered the personalised privacy requirement. Furthermore, sensitive information disclosure may also be caused by these personalised requirements. To address the matter, this article develops a personalised data publishing method for multiple SAs. According to the requirements of individuals, the new method partitions SAs values into two categories: private values and public values, and breaks the association between them for privacy guarantees. For the private values, this paper takes the process of anonymisation, while the public values are released without this process. An algorithm is designed to achieve the privacy mode, where the selectivity is determined by the sensitive value frequency and undesirable objects. The experimental results show that the proposed method can provide more information utility when compared with previous methods. The theoretic analyses and experiments also indicate that the privacy can be guaranteed even though the public values are known to an adversary. The overgeneralisation and privacy breach caused by the personalised requirement can be avoided by the new method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]