Search

Background Data papers have emerged as a powerful instrument for open data publishing, obtaining credit, and establishing priority for datasets generated in scientific experiments. Academic publishing improves data and metadata quality through peer review and increases the impact of datasets by enhancing their visibility, accessibility, and reusability. Objective We aimed to establish a new type of article structure and template for omics studies: the omics data paper. To improve data interoperability and further incentivize researchers to publish well-described datasets, we created a prototype workflow for streamlined import of genomics metadata from the European Nucleotide Archive directly into a data paper manuscript. Methods An omics data paper template was designed by defining key article sections that encourage the description of omics datasets and methodologies. A metadata import workflow, based on REpresentational State Transfer services and Xpath, was prototyped to extract information from the European Nucleotide Archive, ArrayExpress, and BioSamples databases. Findings The template and workflow for automatic import of standard-compliant metadata into an omics data paper manuscript provide a mechanism for enhancing existing metadata through publishing. Conclusion The omics data paper structure and workflow for import of genomics metadata will help to bring genomic and other omics datasets into the spotlight. Promoting enhanced metadata descriptions and enforcing manuscript peer review and data auditing of the underlying datasets brings additional quality to datasets. We hope that streamlined metadata reuse for scholarly publishing encourages authors to create enhanced metadata descriptions in the form of data papers to improve both the quality of their metadata and its findability and accessibility.

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.

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.

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.

Highlights • Segmented peer review is a new process for multidisciplinary research submissions • It explicitly allocates segments of a manuscript to appropriate expert reviewers • Reviewers focus on segments of the manuscript within their specialty • Editors integrate segmented reviews for final decision (publish, revise, or reject) • Reduces barriers to publication inherent in multidisciplinary research, We propose a new process for peer review of multidisciplinary journal submissions called ‘segmented peer review’. The current translational research environment increasingly requires complex and multidisciplinary studies that span multiple distinct specialties within a single paper. Such papers present logistic and practical barriers to effective peer review. To address these barriers, papers undergoing segmented peer review require authors to explicitly i) identify each of the areas of expertise required to review the paper, ii) direct each reviewer to the relevant portions of the manuscript, and iii) suggest in-field reviewers. This segmentation of the paper is then followed by a ‘segmented peer review request’ tailored to the expertise of each potential reviewer, with a request to confine his / her review to those ‘in-scope’ aspects of the paper, while de-emphasizing any optional ‘out-of-scope’ comments. Each reviewer indicates the fitness for publication, or suitability for revision, of their particular segment of the manuscript. The segmented peer review process is completed when the editors integrate the segmented peer reviews. We propose segmented peer review as a fit-for-purpose process with tangible advantages for authors, reviewers, and journal editors. It should reduce the specific barriers to publication inherent in the evaluation of multidisciplinary research efforts., Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract

Time to acceptance from submission and time to publication (publication lag) determines how quickly novel information is made available to other scientists and experts. In the medical field, the review process and revisions usually takes 3&ndash, 4 months, the total time from submission to publication is 8&ndash, 9 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, information should be available much faster. The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten. The median time to acceptance was three days for all publications, six days for research papers and reviews, four days for case studies and two days for other publication types. The median publication lag was nine days for all publications together, 11 days for research papers, nine days for case studies, 13 days for reviews and seven days for other publications. This demonstrates that the publication process&mdash, if necessary&mdash, can be sped up. For the sake of scientific accuracy, review times should not be pushed down, but the time from acceptance to actual publication could be shorter.

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.

Retracted publications are a crucial, yet overlooked, issue in the scientific community. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence, characteristics and reasons of Malaysian retracted papers. The Web of Science and Scopus databases were queried to identify Malaysian retracted publications. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. The publications were assessed for various characteristics, including reason for retraction, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, and the authority calling for the retractions. From 2009 to June 2017, 125 Malaysian publications comprising (33 journal articles and 92 conference papers) were retracted. There was a spike in the prevalence of retracted articles in 2010 and 2012 with 42 articles (33.6%) and 41 articles (32.8%) respectively from the 125 retracted articles. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 1 year. There is no significant relationship between a journal quartile and the mean number of months to retraction (P = 0.842). The reason for retraction for conference papers was specified as “violation of publication principle”. Journal articles were retracted mainly for duplicate publication, plagiarism, compromised peer review process, and self-plagiarism. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and only 2 retracted articles have been accused of scientific mistakes. The study concludes that retractions were mostly due to the authors misconduct. Despite the increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small, indicating that retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing and incipient, issue within Malaysian papers, which publishers as well as editors may have consistently and sufficiently addressed.

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.

How does the structure of the peer review process, which can vary among journals, influence the quality of papers published in a journal? This article studies multiple systems of peer review using computational simulation. I find that, under any of the systems I study, a majority of accepted papers are evaluated by an average reader as not meeting the standards of the journal. Moreover, all systems allow random chance to play a strong role in the acceptance decision. Heterogeneous reviewer and reader standards for scientific quality drive both results. A peer review system with an active editor—that is, one who uses desk rejection before review and does not rely strictly on reviewer votes to make decisions—can mitigate some of these effects.

The current peer review system is under stress from ever increasing numbers of publications, the proliferation of open-access journals and an apparent difficulty in obtaining high-quality reviews in due time. At its core, this issue may be caused by scientists insufficiently prioritising reviewing. Perhaps this low prioritisation is due to a lack of understanding on how many reviews need to be conducted by researchers to balance the peer review process. I obtained verified peer review data from 142 journals across 12 research fields, for a total of over 300,000 reviews and over 100,000 publications, to determine an estimate of the numbers of reviews required per publication per field. I then used this value in relation to the mean numbers of authors per publication per field to highlight a &lsquo, review ratio&rsquo, the expected minimum number of publications an author in their field should review to balance their input (publications) into the peer review process. On average, 3.49 &plusmn, 1.45 (SD) reviews were required for each scientific publication, and the estimated review ratio across all fields was 0.74 &plusmn, 0.46 (SD) reviews per paper published per author. Since these are conservative estimates, I recommend scientists aim to conduct at least one review per publication they produce. This should ensure that the peer review system continues to function as intended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IntroductionDevelopments in information and communication technologies have enabled electronic health and seen a huge expansion over the last decade. This has increased the possibility of self-management of health issues.PurposeTo assess the effectiveness of the Baby Buddy app on maternal self-efficacy and mental well-being three months post-birth in a sample of mothers recruited antenatally. In addition, to explore when, why and how mothers use the app and consider any benefits the app may offer them in relation to their parenting, health, relationships or communication with their child, friends, family members or health professionals.MethodsWe will use a mixed-methods approach, a cohort study, a qualitative element and analysis of in-app data. Participants will be first-time pregnant women, aged 16 years and over, between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation and recruited from five English study sites.Evaluation planWe will compare maternal self-efficacy and mental health at three months post-delivery in mothers who have downloaded the Baby Buddy app compared with those that have not downloaded the app, controlling for confounding factors. Women will be recruited antenatally between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation. Further follow-ups will take place at 35 weeks of gestation and three months post-birth. Data from the cohort study will be supplemented by in-app data that will include, for example, patterns of usage. Qualitative data will assess the impact of the app on the lives of pregnant women and health professionals using both focus groups and interviews.EthicsApproval from the West Midlands-South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (NRES) (16/WM/0029) and the University of the West of England, Bristol, Research Ethics Committee (HAS.16.08.001).DisseminationFindings of the study will be published in peer reviewed and professional journals, presented locally, nationally and at international conferences. Participants will receive a summary of the findings and the results will be published on Best Beginnings’ website.

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.

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.

String of publications describes attempts — mostly unsuccessful — to use proposed CRISPR rival.

BACKGROUND: Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website.OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.METHODS: Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy.RESULTS: FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical.CONCLUSION: There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias).

Journal publication of material presented at medical conferences is vital in propagating research to the global community. The peer review process provides a rigorous assessment and critique of scientific methodology and helps ensure research remains relevant. Therefore, journal publication rates of material presented at meetings is a significant marker of the research quality of the meetings and their participants (1). Impact factors (IF) of journals are determined by dividing the number of citations articles receive by the number of citable articles over a period of time and is considered a marker of the scientific quality of a journal (2). The IF of the journal in which an article is published is therefore a partial marker of the scientific quality of that study.

Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer's level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and 'hidden dangers' that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the 'junior referee' in the field of surgery.

G.L-B acknowledges funding from ERC CoG 647012 and the Spanish MINECO BFU-34298. C.R. acknowledges funding from the Champalimaud Foundation, the Human Frontier Science Program (Project Grant RGP0022/2012), the Marie Curie FP7 Programme (FLiACT ITN), and the BIAL Foundation. (283/14)

A survey was mailed to 293 referees from the review board of Food Science and Technology International with the following personal characteristics: ages: 35–45 (35%), 45–55 (37%), and 55–65 (27%); 93% PhD graduates; 69% male, 98% researchers, 82% teachers too, 85% review for other journals as well to assess reviewers’ attitudes or preferences in favor of or against masking their identity, and toward the electronic transmission of papers for review. The reviewers were mainly from Europe, North America, and South America. The questionnaire was anonymous and asked if respondents were in favor of an open review or masking of the reviewers, and if they agreed with the electronic transmission of the papers for their review (both from the point of view of author and reviewer). The response rate was 35% (103 respondents). The consistency between the answers as being authors or reviewers when asked by the peer review process was significant ( P

This letter analyses paper acceptance time in respiratory journals and discusses novel ways to disseminate research http://ow.ly/b9uX306esnA

This study set out to compare Cochrane reviews and reviews published in paper-based journals. Two assessment tools were used to collect the data, a 23-itemchecklist developed by Sacks and a nine-itemscale developed by Oxman. Cochrane reviews were found to be better at reporting some items and paper-based reviews at reporting others. The overall quality was found to be low. This represents a serious situation because clinicians, health policy makers, and consumers are often told that systematic reviews represent “the best available evidence.” In the period since this study, the Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of its reviews through, for example, more thorough prepublication refereeing, developments in the training and support offered to reviewers, and improvements in the system for postpublication peer review. In addition, the use of evidence-based criteria (i.e., the QUOROM statement) for reporting systematic reviews may help further to improve their quality.

Background: Motor complications are a consequence of the chronic dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and include levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LIDs) and motor fluctuations (MF). Currently, evidence is on lacking whether patients with GBA-associated PD differ in their risk of developing motor complications compared to the general PD population. Objective: To evaluate the association of GBA carrier status with the development of LIDS and MFs from early PD. Methods: Motor complications were recorded prospectively in 884 patients with PD from four longitudinal cohorts using part IV of the UPDRS or MDS-UPDRS. Subjects were followed for up to 11 years and the associations of GBA mutations with the development of motor complications were assessed using parametric accelerated failure time models. Results: In 439 patients from Europe, GBA mutations were detected in 53 (12.1%) patients and a total of 168 cases of LIDs and 258 cases of MF were observed. GBA carrier status was not associated with the time to develop LIDs (HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.26, p = 0.30) or MF (HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.70, p = 0.33). In the American cohorts, GBA mutations were detected in 36 (8.1%) patients and GBA carrier status was also not associated with the progression to LIDs (HR 1.08, 95%CI 0.55 to 2.14, p = 0.82) or MF (HR 1.22, 95%CI 0.74 to 2.04, p = 0.43). Conclusion: This study does not provide evidence that GBA-carrier status is associated with a higher risk of developing motor complications. Publication of studies with null results is vital to develop an accurate summary of the clinical features that impact patients with GBA-associated PD. publishedVersion

To have a successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a collection of factors and items is needed. Some of them directly and the others indirectly have important roles in scholarly publication. However, a well-designed scientific investigation together with a powerful academic English language may guarantee the publication of a manuscript. In other words, a standard and professional methodology which is expressed by an influent academic English language constitutes the soul of the manuscript's body. Obviously, the accuracy and fluency of the English language of the manuscript is the author(s)' responsibility and neither the reviewers' nor the editor's and the journal's. As publication of a research paper is the complementary section of a scientific study, it is recognized as an academic criterion for academicians. Thus, this review focuses on the all of items which are necessary and vital for a successful scholarly publication.

Background Relapse is high in lifestyle interventions involving behavioural change and weight loss maintenance. The purpose of lifestyle self‐management interventions offered at Healthy Life Centres (HLCs) is to empower the participants, leading to self‐management and improved health. Exploring beneficial self‐management support and user involvement in HLCs is critical for quality, improving effectiveness and guiding approaches to lifestyle change support in overweight and obesity. Objective The aim of this study was to explore how persons afflicted by overweight or obesity attending lifestyle interventions in Norwegian HLCs experience beneficial self‐management support and user involvement. Method Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted with 13 service users (5 men and 8 women). Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results One main theme was identified: regaining self‐esteem and dignity through active involvement and long‐term self‐worth support in partnership with others. This main theme comprised four themes: (a) self‐efficacy through active involvement and better perceived health, (b) valued through health‐care professionals (HPs) acknowledgement, equality and individualized support, (c) increased motivation and self‐belief through fellowship and peer support; and (d) maintenance of lifestyle change through accessibility and long‐term support. Conclusion Service users’ active involvement, acknowledgement and long‐term self‐worth support from HPs and peers seem to support self‐management and user involvement and may be some of the successful ingredients to lifestyle change. However, prolonged follow‐up support is needed. A collectivistic and long‐term perspective can integrate the importance of significant others and shared responsibility.

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Background: More women are choosing to birth at home in well-resourced countries. Concerns persist that out-of-hospital birth contributes to higher perinatal and neonatal mortality. This systematic review and meta-analyses determines if risk of fetal or neonatal loss differs among low-risk women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to low-risk women intending to give birth in hospital. Methods: In April 2018 we searched five databases from 1990 onward and used R to obtain pooled estimates of effect. We stratified by study design, study settings and parity. The primary outcome is any perinatal or neonatal death after the onset of labour. The study protocol is peer-reviewed, published and registered (PROSPERO No.CRD42013004046). Findings: We identified 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis including ~500,000 intended home births. Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03). Interpretation: The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital. Funding: Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant. Research in Context: Evidence before this study Although there is increasing acceptance for intended home birth as a choice for birthing women, controversy about its safety persists. The varying responses of obstetrical societies to intended home birth provide evidence of contrasting views. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials addressing this topic included one small trial and noted that in the absence of adequately sized randomised controlled trials on the topic of intended home compared to intended hospital birth, a peer reviewed protocol be published to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis including observational studies. Reviews to date have been limited by design or methodological issues and none has used a protocol published a priori.Added value of this study Individual studies are underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences in rare outcomes. This study uses a published peer-reviewed protocol and is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes of intended home and hospital birth. We take study design, parity and jurisdictional support for home birth into account. Our study provides much needed information to policy makers, care providers and women and families when planning for birth.Implications of all the available evidence Women who are low risk and who intend to give birth at home do not appear to have a different risk of fetal or neonatal loss compared to a population of similarly low risk women intending to give birth in hospital. Keywords: Home childbirth, Low risk birth, Perinatal mortality, Neonatal mortality, Systematic review

Introduction and Aims The gender difference in alcohol use seems to have narrowed in the Nordic countries, but it is not clear to what extent this may have affected differences in levels of harm. We compared gender differences in all‐cause and cause‐specific alcohol‐attributed disease burden, as measured by disability‐adjusted life‐years (DALY), in four Nordic countries in 2000–2017, to find out if gender gaps in DALYs had narrowed. Design and Methods Alcohol‐attributed disease burden by DALYs per 100 000 population with 95% uncertainty intervals were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease database. Results In 2017, all‐cause DALYs in males varied between 2531 in Finland and 976 in Norway, and in females between 620 in Denmark and 270 in Norway. Finland had the largest gender differences and Norway the smallest, closely followed by Sweden. During 2000–2017, absolute gender differences in all‐cause DALYs declined by 31% in Denmark, 26% in Finland, 19% in Sweden and 18% in Norway. In Finland, this was driven by a larger relative decline in males than females; in Norway, it was due to increased burden in females. In Denmark, the burden in females declined slightly more than in males, in relative terms, while in Sweden the relative decline was similar in males and females. Discussion and Conclusions The gender gaps in harm narrowed to a different extent in the Nordic countries, with the differences driven by different conditions. Findings are informative about how inequality, policy and sociocultural differences affect levels of harm by gender. © 2020 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background The patient's right to be involved in treatment decisions is anchored in guidelines and legislation in many countries. Previous research suggests challenges in the implementation of user involvement across different areas of health care, including mental health. However, little is known about psychiatric outpatients’ experiences of being involved in their treatment. Objective To investigate how psychiatric outpatients after treatment rate the degree to which they were included in the treatment and explore the associations between perceived user involvement, demographic characteristics of the sample and patient satisfaction. Design Cross‐sectional. Setting and participants The sample consisted of 188 psychiatric outpatients (67% female, mean age 42.2 years) who were discharged in the two years prior to data collection. Main variables studied Perceived user involvement in psychiatric outpatient treatment and patient satisfaction as measured by the Psychiatric Out‐Patient Experiences Questionnaire. Results About half of the participants rated the overall degree of involvement in their treatment as high or very high. The lowest percentage of participants reporting high or very high involvement was found for sufficient information to contribute to treatment decisions (36%). Female gender, higher education and, to a small degree, younger age were associated with more involvement. Perceived user involvement was strongly associated with treatment satisfaction. Discussion and conclusion The findings suggest that user involvement in psychiatric outpatient treatment can be improved. Patient information that facilitates user involvement should be given more attention. Patient or Public Contribution The hospital's user panel was involved in the development of items assessing user involvement. © 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people’s health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Objectives Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people’s thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID‐19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID‐19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. Methods Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5‐8 of the UK COVID‐19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. Findings Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID‐19‐related risks in the short term (P

Age of first walking (AOW) is reported to be later in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with typical development. However, the relationship between AOW and variations in ASD symptoms across different neurodevelopmental disorders is largely unknown. This study investigated AOW and its association with autism symptom severity in a large sample of children (N = 490, 23% females) clinically evaluated for suspected ASD, differentiated into ASD (n = 376) and non-ASD (n = 114) diagnoses. Children with ASD achieved independent walking significantly later than children with non-ASD diagnoses. AOW was significantly associated with ASD symptom severity, and females had a non-significant later AOW. The current findings suggest that in cases with delayed AOW, ASD should be considered as an actual differential diagnosis, perhaps particularly in girls.

The efficacy of leveraging telehealth services on clinical outcomes remains scarcely documented. We conducted a rapid review to explore the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for the diagnosis, contact tracing and care of the corona virus disease of 2019 in sub Saharan Africa. Using MEDLINE, Science Direct and Cochrane Library databases, a review was conducted during the month of July 2020 of peer reviewed articles reporting on the use of telehealth interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. All the studies were assessed against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. The 7 studies included in the synthesis were conducted in 2 countries [Nigeria (× 1), Zimbabwe (× 1)], and commentaries covering the entire sub Saharan Africa in general (× 4) and to Uganda (× 1). All the included articles and commentaries were published in 2020. We established that mobile applications are effective in providing information for referrals of potential patients infected by COVID 19 and provides convenient access to routine care without the risk of exposure through close contact. In countries such as Nigeria, mobile positioning data significantly improved decision making, capacity and scope of contact tracing and surveillance of known contacts of confirmed cases. We noted that collaborations between the government, mobile network operators and technology companies were utilised for successful mobile positioning data tracing interventions for COVID patients. Mobile applications such as the Vula platform in South Africa were also noted as effective in providing psychological support to health care workers attending to patients.