Search

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.

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

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

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

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.

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™.

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

Scientific observations must survive the scrutiny of experts before they are disseminated to the broader community because their publication in a scientific journal provides a stamp of validity. Although critical review of a manuscript by peers prior to publication in a scientific journal is a central element in this process, virtually no formal guidance is provided to reviewers about the nature of the task. In this article, the essence of peer review is described and critical steps in the process are summarized. The role of the peer reviewer as an intermediary and arbiter in the process of scientific communication between the authors and the readers via the vehicle of the particular journal is discussed and the responsibilities of the reviewer to each of the three parties (the author/s, readers, and the Journal editor) are defined. The two formal products of this activity are separate sets of reviewer comments to the editor and the authors and these are described. Ethical aspects of the process are considered and rewards accruing to the reviewer summarized.

We study how scholar collaboration varies across disciplines in science, social science, arts and humanities and the effects of author collaboration on impact and quality of co-authored papers. Impact is measured with the aid of citations collected by papers, while quality is determined by the judgements expressed by peer reviewers. To this end, we take advantage of the dataset provided by the first-ever national research assessment exercise of Italian universities, which involved 20 disciplinary areas, 102 research structures, 18,500 research products, and 6661 peer reviewers. Collaboration intensity neatly varies across disciplines: it is inescapable is most sciences and negligible in most humanities. We measured a general positive association between cardinality of the author set of a paper and citation count as well as peer quality of the contribution. The correlation is stronger when the affiliations of authors are heterogeneous. There exist, however, notable and interesting counter-examples.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the most cited articles in general surgery published by Brazilian authors. INTRODUCTION: There are several ways for the international community to recognize the quality of a scientific article. Although controversial, the most widely used and reliable methodology to identify the importance of an article is citation analysis. METHODS: A search using the Institute for Scientific Information citation database (Science Citation Index Expanded) was performed to identify highly cited Brazilian papers published in twenty-six highly cited general surgery journals, selected based on their elevated impact factors, from 1970 to 2009. Further analysis was done on the 65 most-cited papers. RESULTS: We identified 1,713 Brazilian articles, from which nine papers emerged as classics (more than 100 citations received). For the Brazilian contributions, a total increase of about 21-fold was evident between 1970 and 2009. Although several topics were covered, articles covering trauma, oncology and organ transplantation were the most cited. The majority of classic studies were done with international cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the most influential Brazilian articles published in internationally renowned general surgery journals.

Peer reviews of research articles submitted to journals are an occluded genre, that is, they are not publicly available documents which are part of the research record. When submitting their first scientific papers to international journals for publication, NNSE (non-native speaker of English) novice researchers face the challenging task of framing effective replies to referees’ criticisms, a complex process requiring considerable socio-cultural sensitivity and pragma-linguistic competence. In order to lessen the impact of linguistic and cultural barriers to early publication, it is likely that an awareness of relevant features of peer reviews would be helpful. However, as gatekeeping discourse, peer reviews remain largely under-researched principally due to their hidden status and issues of confidentiality. This study presents the description and analysis of referees’ comments contained in a corpus of 40 peer reviews of short scientific papers known as Letters. In the task of revising their manuscripts for publication, novice researchers need to interpret appropriately the motivation behind referees’ comments, for example, whether they are more directed towards revision of the technical subject matter ( ideational ), the effectiveness of the writer's interaction with the reader in the text ( interpersonal ), or an aspect of the text itself, for example, its format or length ( textual ). The results of this study highlight the strongly interpersonal orientation of referees’ concerns, with two-thirds of all comments in the corpus focusing on interactional deficiencies of NNSE researchers’ manuscripts.

Aim The objectives of this study were to: determine the presentation to publication conversion rate (PPCR) in peer-reviewed indexed journals of free papers and posters presented at 12–14th September 2001 British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) annual meeting and to compare the publication rate with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting in 2001. Methodology We looked at all presentations including both podium and poster presentations at British Orthopaedic Association meeting held in 2001 and assessed for subsequent publication as full-text article with a fixed PubMed search protocol. Once the abstract was identified as being published, we noted the name of the journal, citation, and time to presentation. The level of evidence was assigned for each abstract along the guidelines published by the centre for evidence-based medicine, Oxford, UK. This conversion rate was compared with the presentation to publication rate for the AAOS meeting in 2001. Results A total of 179 abstracts were presented at the 2001 BOA meeting. 65 of these were published as full-text articles in 30 different journals. The overall publication rate was 36.3%. The publication rate of the papers presented at AAOS annual meeting 2001 was 49% (367/756). The mean time from presentation to publication was 18.6 months (±9.4 months). Three fourths of them were published after 2 years of presentations (63% for AAOS). Majority of studies were either level III or IV. 14 full-text articles were published in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British (JBJS Br) and 8 in the Injury Journal. Conclusions This is the first study reporting the publication rate of presentations for BOA meeting and comparing it with the publication rate of AAOS meeting in 2001. The publication rate of BOA presentations is much lower than the AAOS meeting. We believe the publication rate is an important tool in judging the quality of research work and the reputation of a scientific meeting with higher conversion rates suggesting better quality. Thus, more stringent selection criteria need to be introduced so that the selected abstracts can withstand peer-view for publication as full-text articles.

The move towards greater public sector efficiency has meant considerable changes in resource allocation to higher education. An efficient and equitable restructuring of the sector will be greatly assisted by the sensible use of appropriate performance indicators. This article extends previous work, which looked at the quantity of refereed publications, by developing research performance indicators based on citations, research grants and peer review. Whilst there is a moderately strong positive relationship between the quantity of publications and citations indicators, rcscarch funding seems to be of quite limited importance to economics departments, and peer reviews need to be checked against more objective measures.

Background: Peer review of university classroom teaching can increase the quality of teaching but is not universally practiced in Australian universities. Aim: To report an evaluation of paired peer-review process using both paper and web based teaching evaluation tools. Methods: Twenty university teachers in one metropolitan Australian School of Nursing and Midwifery were randomly paired and then randomly assigned to a paper based or web-based peer review tool. Each teacher reviewed each other's classroom teaching as part of a peer review program. The participants then completed an 18 question survey evaluating the peer review tool and paired evaluation process. Responses were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Results: Regardless of the tool used, participants found this process of peer review positive (75%), collegial (78%), supportive (61%) and non-threatening (71%). Participants reported that the peer review will improve their own classroom delivery (61%), teaching evaluation (61%) and planning (53%). The web-based tool was found to be easier to use and allowed more space than the paper-based tool. Conclusion: Implementation of a web-based paired peer review system can be a positive method of peer review of university classroom teaching. Pairing of teachers to review each other's classroom teaching is a promising strategy and has the potential to improve teaching in teaching universities. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: We previously concluded that risk of stillbirth, neonatal mortality or morbidity is not different whether birth is intended at home or hospital. Here, we compare the occurrence of birth interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women who begin labour intending to birth at home compared to women intending to birth in hospital. Methods: We used our registered protocol (PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk, No.CRD42013004046) and searched five databases from 1990–2018. Using R, we obtained pooled estimates of effect (accounting for study design, study setting and parity). Findings: 16 studies provided data from ~500,000 intended home births for the meta-analyses. There were no reported maternal deaths. When controlling for parity in well-integrated settings we found women intending to give birth at home compared to hospital were less likely to experience: caesarean section OR 0.58(0.44,0.77); operative vaginal birth OR 0.42(0.23,0.76); epidural analgesia OR 0.30(0.24,0.38); episiotomy OR 0.45(0.28,0.73); 3rd or 4th degree tear OR 0.57(0.43,0.75); oxytocin augmentation OR 0.37(0.26,0.51) and maternal infection OR 0.23(0.15,0.35). Pooled results for postpartum haemorrhage showed women intending home births were either less likely or did not differ from those intending hospital birth [OR 0.66(0.54,0.80) and RR 1.30(0.79,2.13) from 2 studies that could not be pooled with the others]. Similar results were found when data were stratified by parity and by degree of integration into health systems. Interpretation: Among low-risk women, those intending to birth at home experienced fewer birth interventions and untoward maternal outcomes. These findings along with earlier work reporting neonatal outcomes inform families, health care providers and policy makers around the safety of intended home births. Funding: Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant. Keywords: Home delivery, Home birth, Home childbirth, Maternal mortality, Obstetrical intervention, Systematic review

The positive experiences regarding peer review practice go back to the 1990s and can be traced in the position paper of the German Medical Association concerning quality assurance in the field of pathology. This evolved into the initiative of pathologists in Saxony to implement the peer review practice within the remit of their State Medical Association. Since the 14(th) of May 1999 various institutes as well as medical group practices in pathology and cytology have joined forces to undertake voluntary inter-institutional quality control measures. The aim was to improve the process and especially the outcome quality by reviewing each other's quality (analysing samples) on the basis of defined criteria. A positive review outcome report, which will have to be unanimously agreed upon by all participants, will lead to a positive recommendation for a certificate issued by the Medical Association of Saxony. Between 1999 and 2011 a total of 56 peer review proceedings took place. The potentials for improvement concern the problem of "kitchen pathology" still being used in the context of macroscopic description, the quality of microscopic description including the use of correct nomenclature, the quality of tumour classification and immune histological investigations. Statements concerning the advantage of the peer review method in particular refer to the integration of resident pathologists. Due to the long period of implementation of the peer review system und the small number of proceedings, it is not possible to come to a clear conclusion about the improvement or deterioration of quality. During a period of more than 10 years three peer review proceedings were not successful. In this situation, it is appropriate to ask the question of how restrictive peer reviews should be. The three most important aspects for the pathologists in Saxony are: self-determination, learning from each other, and a commitment to quality improvement. So this method set an example of how a quality management method can persist for more than 10 years through voluntary engagement. And the initiative of pathologists in Saxony has given an important impetus to the development of other peer review systems in various health care organisations or disciplines in Germany.

Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and non-beneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [1]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [2]. There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes – a “core outcomes set” – for all trials in a specific clinical area [1]. Recognising that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women’s health have come together to support The CROWN (CoRe Outcomes in WomeN’s health) Initiative (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Aims of The CROWN Initiative. Development of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynaecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working towards core data sets for all medical specialties [3]. Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods [1]. The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future. Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to The CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed below. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions which describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated. Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (www.comet-initiative.org): “The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well”. We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating. Producing, disseminating and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice.

Background As robotics continues to be applied to medical and nursing practice, nurse educators need to be aware of innovations and discuss practice and challenges with students. Objectives This paper provides a literature review of the application of robotics in nursing and the implications for nurse education. Review methods The methodology adopted for this review was informed by the definition of service robots. The review focused on how clinical service robotics are being discussed in nursing and was undertaken using the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect and ProQuest databases, using the truncated search terms: nurs* and robot*, education, students and future. Research articles were limited to those that were published in peer reviewed journals, between 2010 and 2019, since this covers the time when robotic science has been flourishing. The field of robotics is vast, thus the search yielded over 400 articles, but most are not specifically relevant to nursing. Twenty-six relevant papers were included. Results Thematic review of the literature found four main developments affecting nursing and mixed perceptions and ideas among health care staff and the public across varied themes. Conclusion Health care and nursing work are being transformed through robotics. New technologies, tasks and technician roles that currently do not exist will soon be part of the health workforce, and the nature of nursing work will inevitably change. In the light of such change, there is a need to redefine the nature and practice of nursing and to re-prioritise caring as fundamental to the nursing profession. These changes have implications for the education of future nursing professionals.

Peer reviews form an essential part of scientific communications. Research papers and proposals are reviewed by several peers before they are finally accepted or rejected for publication and funding, respectively. With the steady increase in the number of research domains, scholarly venues (journal and/or conference), researchers, and papers, managing the peer review process is becoming a daunting task. Application of recommender systems to assist peer reviewing is, therefore, being explored and becoming an emerging research area. In this paper, we present a deep learning network based Meta-Review Generation considering peer review prediction of the scholarly article (MRGen). MRGen is able to provide solutions for: (i) Peer review prediction (Task 1) and (ii) Meta-review generation (Task 2). First, the system takes the peer reviews as input and produces a draft meta-review. Then it employs an integrated framework of convolution layer, long short-term memory (LSTM) model, Bi-LSTM model, and attention mechanism to predict the final decision (accept/reject) of the scholarly article. Based on the final decision, the proposed model MRGen incorporates Pointer Generator Network-based abstractive summarization to generate the final meta-review. The focus of our approach is to give a concise meta-review that maximizes information coverage, coherence, readability and also reduces redundancy. Extensive experiments conducted on the PeerRead dataset demonstrate good consistency between the recommended decisions and original decisions. We also compare the performance of MRGen with some of the existing state-ofthe- art multi-document summarization methods. The system also outperforms a few existing models based on accuracy, Rouge scores, readability, non-redundancy, and cohesion.

This paper describes and explains how balancing organizational structures can build traits for organizational resilience. Organizational resilience is a holistic and complex concept. In this paper, ...

The contributions to this special issue are from young researchers to experts in their relative areas from across the world and represents a current and up to date research overview on materials and manufacturing. Participants from educational institutions, research organizations and industries presented their research work and latest developments. A Pre- conference workshop was organized on 29th March, 2017 with four sessions in area of Automotive materials and live demonstrations also given to the participants. Totally we received around 220 Articles and Selected 154 Articles for Conference presentation and for publication. The papers were peer reviewed and selected papers are recommended for publication in this special issue.

An authors' satisfaction is apparently influenced by the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process. In a research field, where multiple peer-reviewed journals offer the publication of articles and share a common scientific interest, an opportunity exists for them to cooperate in the often costly investment needed to maintain the peer review system. In a cooperative peer-review scenario, academic journals would share a submission management system, a reviewer database, a reviewer selection process, a recommended set of standards for reporting reviews, a review quality instrument, and a model for reviewer compensation. However, the final decision on what to publish in each journal would rest solely with the journal editor. This paper aims to apply peer review theory to the exploration of cooperative peer review. Thus, game theory is used to describe and model how peer review agents behave. A set of strategies for those agents is an equilibrium if each represents a best response to the other strategies. If all the players are playing the strategies in an equilibrium, they have no unilateral incentive to deviate, since their strategy is the best they can do given what others are doing. The equilibria of these games can predict how actual journals, authors and reviewers will behave when confronted with situations analogous to the peer-review game being studied. In particular, cooperation between peer-reviewed journals is more likely when each journal's prospective benefits outweigh that journal's prospective costs. Therefore, in this paper, we compare a Benchmark scenario of competition between journals and a cooperative scenario to further analyze the impact of incorporating cooperative peer review in the academic publishing process. We find that a cost-sharing scheme in cooperative peer review helps the academic journals offer a higher review quality than they would otherwise be able to achieve individually. A key insight from our results is that if a cost-sharing factor is properly specified, cooperative peer review can benefit the competing academic journals and help increase their profit levels, quality standards for accepting articles and review quality.

The peer review process typically has multiple evaluators. Too often editors rely on the Union Heuristic, which requires authors to perform all requested tests and extensions suggested by referees and editors, with results confirming the paper’s message. The Union Heuristic is easy, but has dysfunctional consequences—wasteful efforts on excessive empirical and theoretical robustness checks and extensions, slow publication times, bloated papers, and heavy use of referee time. We contrast this with the polar opposite (also not our recommendation), the Intersection Heuristic—requiring authors to perform only extensions requested by all evaluators. We propose that editors reset norms by making clear that as a matter of procedure, at editor discretion, excellent referee or coeditor suggestions will often not be mandated for authors. Instead, there should be a presumption of Up or Out (accept or reject typically one round of revisions or less) for submissions, with the extent of suggested changes held firmly in check. This will improve referee and author incentives, and streamline the publication process. It may also encourage authors to take the risks inherent in producing more innovative papers.

Background Productive faculty are key to generating new knowledge and advancing pharmacy practice. The work environments of academic pharmacists are critical to their vitality, commitment, and longevity. Objectives To (1) identify correlates of faculty scholarly productivity and teaching effectiveness, considering personal and environmental characteristics; (2) determine the relationship between a faculty's perception of organizational citizenship behaviors they witness with the organizational culture of their employing college/school of pharmacy; and (3) describe the relationship between organizational climate, job satisfaction, and commitment of academic pharmacists. Methods A self-administered survey was disseminated to a random sample of U.S. academic pharmacists acquired from AACP list-servs. The survey measured perceptions of their organization's culture, the organizational citizenship behaviors they witness at their institution, their job satisfaction, teaching load and productivity, and scholarly productivity based upon peer-reviewed scholarly papers accepted. Both bivariate and multivariate (regression) procedures were employed to identify factors most responsible for explaining academic pharmacist's work environment. Results Responses were received from 177 of 600 survey recipients. Faculty reported having had accepted 10.9 ± 13.6 papers in peer-reviewed journals during the previous 5 years, with most of those in journals with relatively low Impact Factor scores. Faculty productivity was related to type of academic institution employed, teaching effectiveness, job satisfaction, and other factors. Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational culture was seen similarly by faculty of varied ranks and experience levels. Commitment to remain at the current college/school of pharmacy was highly associated with culture, climate, and job satisfaction conditions. Conclusions The results provided evidence for a strong connection or nexus between teaching and research effectiveness. Organizational culture of academic pharmacy programs is highly important for faculty vitality and commitment. The findings should be helpful for academic leaders in devising programs for mentoring, development, and retention of faculty.

Objective The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on the evolution and current status of research into temporal variation impacts on human task performance. Methods This review details the findings from a systematic review of peer reviewed literature identified via keyword searches in ISI Web of Science, Engineering Village Compendex, IEEE Explore, PsycINFO, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) online, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar. Proceeding articles, peer reviewed journals, cited grey literature, and government technical reports relevant to temporal variability in human performance were identified and used in this review. Both statistical and contents analysis were conducted in this paper. Results Results suggest that the current state of research in human temporal variability is evolving but still has shortcomings in terms of integrating all aspects of interplay between the physical and cognitive components of human response. In light of this, research supporting the sustained development and use of refined cognitive-physical models is gaining momentum and sensible efforts to use task analysis tools that provide integration of both the cognitive and physical components of human response are underway. Conclusions This article identifies that although considerable advancements have been made in understanding the temporal variability of human performance, substantial research regarding the factors affecting it, their impacts, and the practical implications are still required. Originality/value This study is unique in both the breadth and range of literature considered regarding the factors affecting temporal variability in human performance as well as their implications. Successful consideration of these elements in human-centered complex adaptive systems establishes mechanisms for efficient and effective manpower and risk mitigation planning.

This paper aims to examine the influence of authors’ reputation on editorial bias in scholarly journals. By looking at eight years of editorial decisions in four computer science journals, including 7179 observations on 2913 submissions, we reconstructed author/referee-submission networks. For each submission, we looked at reviewer scores and estimated the reputation of submission authors by means of their network degree. By training a Bayesian network, we estimated the potential effect of scientist reputation on editorial decisions. Results showed that more reputed authors were less likely to be rejected by editors when they submitted papers receiving negative reviews. Although these four journals were comparable for scope and areas, we found certain journal specificities in their editorial process. Our findings suggest ways to examine the editorial process in relatively similar journals without recurring to in-depth individual data, which are rarely available from scholarly journals.

Writing in these pages, Noland and colleagues recently proposed a methodology for cost-benefit analysis of ‘Road Diets’ (re-design of the cross-section of a four-lane arterial). On the basis of the proposed procedures, the authors conclude that a Road Diet of an empirical case study (in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA) would provide ‘overwhelming’ benefits. The study team has employed similarly unambiguous language in statements in other public fora. In this paper, I do not take a view of whether Road Diets are in general desirable or not (which will depend heavily on local context). Rather, I demonstrate here that the specification of benefits and costs in the proposed methodology is systematically biased (upwards in the case of ‘benefits’ and downwards in the case of ‘costs’). I also show that the authors mis-interpret public opinion regarding the proposed Road Diet; general public opinion cannot be known on the basis of the evidence that is presented to readers. Finally, it has been previously shown that transportation planners tend to, on average, systematically under-estimate costs and over-estimate benefits. While the authors’ motivations during the study at issue cannot be known, the systematic bias in specifying costs and benefits is consistent with Flyvbjerg’s ‘political-economic hypothesis’, in which it is theorized that planners strategically misrepresent costs and benefits in order to increase the likelihood of a politically-preferred project being advanced. Flyvbjerg suggests making independent peer reviews publicly available as part of a strategy to encourage accountability through transparency; this is the spirit in which the present paper is disseminated.

Background Health literacy (HL) is a key aspect in empowering patient education as part of orthopaedic rehabilitation after total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA). Objectives This scoping review aims to demonstrate the prevalence of patient-related outcome measures in studies on the effectiveness of orthopaedic rehabilitation of older people after TKA/THA. The review also focuses on the identification of outcome measures that assess patients’ HL or HL-related aspects. Methods A scoping literature search was conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The databases MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL Complete, The Cochrane Library, Academic Search Elite, and ERIC were searched with keywords and phrases to find relevant literature. Identified outcome measures were conceptually analysed in a peer reviewed procedure. Those with suspected HL-related content were analysed at item level. Text analyses were performed using MAXQDA. Results 117 papers were included in this review. 45 patient-related outcome measures could be found, 2 of which assess HL-related aspects. No paper could be found that assessed patients’ HL in orthopaedic rehabilitation after TKA/THA. Conclusions HL has hitherto been of limited importance in orthopaedic rehabilitation. Health professionals are responsible for assessing patients’ health literacy and developing appropriate strategies for patient education in the context of orthopaedic rehabilitation.

Peer review has a key role in ensuring that information published in scientific journals is as truthful, valid and accurate as possible. It relies on the willingness of researchers to give of their valuable time to assess submitted papers, not just to validate the work but also to help authors improve its presentation before publication. Referees should allocate adequate time to prepare their review. They should have access to important resources such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the websites of the Committee on Publication Ethics ( https://publicationethics.org/ ) and Equator ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ) which has a useful ‘toolkit’ for reviewing. Comments on the papers are ideally numbered and objective, assessing study design (including sample size), data analysis, interpretation, and strengths and weaknesses. Maintaining confidentiality is essential. Being asked to be a referee is a privilege and has benefits for the reviewer, including exposure to new ideas, staying aware of recent trends, increasing personal knowledge, and learning from good authors how to write better.

Publication and researcher bias is common in software engineering experiments.Our model shows how these biases lead to a high proportion of incorrect results.Increased statistical power is a key factor to improve the trustworthiness. ContextThe trustworthiness of research results is a growing concern in many empirical disciplines. AimThe goals of this paper are to assess how much the trustworthiness of results reported in software engineering experiments is affected by researcher and publication bias, given typical statistical power and significance levels, and to suggest improved research practices. MethodFirst, we conducted a small-scale survey to document the presence of researcher and publication biases in software engineering experiments. Then, we built a model that estimates the proportion of correct results for different levels of researcher and publication bias. A review of 150 randomly selected software engineering experiments published in the period 20022013 was conducted to provide input to the model. ResultsThe survey indicates that researcher and publication bias is quite common. This finding is supported by the observation that the actual proportion of statistically significant results reported in the reviewed papers was about twice as high as the one expected assuming no researcher and publication bias. Our models suggest a high proportion of incorrect results even with quite conservative assumptions. ConclusionResearch practices must improve to increase the trustworthiness of software engineering experiments. A key to this improvement is to avoid conducting studies with unsatisfactory low statistical power.

Project owners are important. They shall support the project manager and provide senior backing to a project. However, there are some different aspects of project ownership, which are discussed in this paper. The main research questions addressed in the paper are; how is the project owner role described in the literature, and how is the role in practice? The paper is mainly a theory review of the topic project ownership. We present a simple model for the relation between project owner, project manager and operation of the project delivery. The basis for the model and discussion is a theoretical review, but we also test the proposed model on a sample of projects. As we will see, this testing creates the need for a distinction between two types of project owners; one that is mainly concerned with supporting the project manager and enabling project delivery, the other being focused on the business case and having responsibility for both project delivery and benefit realization. There has been a development where the importance of the role as project owner has been highlighted. It is our impression that this development has had two ambitions. One is to strengthen project execution. The other ambition is to emphasize the business case perspective. These two perspectives call for different organizational positions of the persons called project owners. We urge future researchers and practitioners to clarify what type of project owner role that is referred to in different contexts. We also call for an awareness of the fact that different project owners will have different set of incentives and priorities. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Individual research output (IRO) evaluation is a multi-criteria problem often conducted in groups. In practice, it is necessary to concurrently apply both bibliometric measures and peer review when evaluating the IRO. During the peer review process, different evaluators may use different linguistic terms because of individual differences in cognitive styles, and therefore, they may give ratings based on different assessing attitudes. Further, the weights between bibliometric measures and peer subjective judgments are difficult to determine. Motivated by these difficulties, this paper proposes a quantitative context-free grammar judgment description with an embedded assessing attitude. The proposed method quantitatively handles the assessing attitude and increases the flexibility of the linguistic information. Accordingly, this paper develops a multi-criteria group IRO evaluation method with context-free grammar judgments which concurrently considers bibliometric measures and peer review opinions. To overcome the weighting difficulties and achieve the maximum consensus, this paper proposes a distance-based method to determine the evaluators' weights and a weighted averaging operator to compute the criteria weights. After that, a TOPSIS-based aggregation method is applied to aggregate the objective and subjective ratings. A practical case study is then used to test the feasibility of the methodology. Finally, we discuss the effectiveness of the proposed method.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly "peer reviewed" papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of "peer review", when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of "predatory publishing", and is also a "fake" element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of "predatory publishing" is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged.

The purpose of this study was to find out the rate of peer-reviewed publication of full papers of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Society of Turkey, and to identify the time taken for publication, subspecialty, and study design. All abstracts accepted for presentation at the meetings in 2007-12 were identified from the books of abstracts, and evidence of publication was sought from PubMed and Google Scholar. The following variables were evaluated: publication rate, type of presentation (oral or poster), time to publication, subspecialty, study design, name of the journal in which the paper was published, impact factor of the journal, author affiliation, change in number of authors and origin of the study. A total of 1322 abstracts were presented between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 246 (19%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including 110/390 oral presentations (28%) and 136/932 poster presentations (15%). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (p=0.000). The mean (SD) time from presentation to publication was 17 (15) months. Anatomical presentations had the highest publication rate (8/11), whereas orthognathic surgery had the lowest (5/67, 7%). Technical notes (5/9) and animal studies (32/70, 46%) were the most common types of publication. Only 246 of the1322 abstracts (19%) were subsequently published as full papers, which is lower than previously reported in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyse a typical planning process in the offshore industry from the perspective of causes of major accidents, with the ultimate aim of identifying factors that affect the risk for major accidents occurring. We first study and describe a typical planning process for offshore oil and gas operations in Norway. Then we analyse a number of theories of major accidents, to see how the different theories and their explanations of causes and contributing factors can be of relevance for future plans and planning processes. Finally, we review accident investigations to search for evidence of how weaknesses in planning processes can contribute to major accidents through the above identified factors. Also, we try to identify any additional factors that have not been recognised through the theoretical review. This provides empirical support for the theoretical basis. Thirteen factors which directly or indirectly can influence the planning process causing a major accident potential are identified. These are exemplified through a review of investigation reports. The paper suggests that planning process should focus more on increasing quality in the plans at an early phase, with examples from incidents, and illustrate the relation between planning quality and potential for major accidents.

Summary Scientific publishing is an essential aspect of medical progress. New advances in human knowledge are communicated to the outside world through publications. It is essential that this knowledge is accurate, valid, reproducible, and clinically useful. Many aspiring clinicians and scientists dream of publishing their work in high-impact journals. For these dreams to become reality, it is essential to follow the basic principles of scientific research and publishing. In this paper, I outline my own personal view on how to publish your paper in such high-impact journals. I discuss the strategy for high-impact research, the logistics of manuscript submission, the likely outcomes, and the reasons for failure or success. I provide an insider's view of what editors look for in a successful manuscript and I offer advice on how to achieve this success.

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. Shortly after appearing In Press, this article was flagged as having an unacceptable amount of duplicate text from a recently published article in another journal. In consultation with the author, publisher, and Editor-in-Chief of both journals, the article has been removed from the production queue and is being withdrawn from In Press. The author expressed regret at misunderstanding this aspect of the publication process, and plans to resubmit after removing all instances of text recycling; ensuring that the hypotheses between the two papers are separate (i.e., papers not split by outcomes); and referencing the previously published paper. Any resulting resubmission will undergo the journal's regular double-blind peer review process. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

The publication of Mark Regnerus’ research paper claiming to show that gays and especially lesbians have poor parenting outcomes has unleashed a firestorm of controversy among social scientists who study family and sexuality—fanned by the author’s cultivation of popular media reporting on the study. Less attention has been paid to the review paper by Loren Marks, arguing against the American Psychological Association’s stance that same-sex parenting is not dysfunctional, but the process by which Social Science Research published that paper is also in question. At the request of the editor, Professor James D. Wright (and at the suggestion of Dr. David Brady of Duke University), I have independently reviewed the submission and review process for both papers, and I report on that process from a perspective of editorial realism. I do this with an eye towards explaining how available and customary procedures can lead to substandard outcomes. I will leave the more detailed critiques of Regnerus’ and Marks’ studies to other scholars. The publication of the Regnerus paper raised red flags for many scholars, including myself, and the timeline of the data collection, article submission, and acceptance led many to assume that Social Science Research colluded with the author and violated standard editorial policy as well as ethical standards. Indeed, the timeline of Regnerus’ data collection effort and paper submission is highly unusual—Regnerus wrote and submitted the first draft of the paper before the data collection had been completed. Regnerus did not indicate that data collection was ongoing in the first draft of his paper. The paper was reviewed, revised, and accepted in only 6 weeks. Normally, an editor would be praised by the scientific community for accomplishing such a miraculous turnaround time for manuscript reviews, but in this case many questioned Wright’s actions and implied a nefarious motive. Wright provided me with all of the reviews and reviewer information, along with the timeline of correspondence, and I will summarize the review process and how I see it in terms of the normal realities of editing a major journal like Social Science Research. This incident provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the peer review process, and how we critically evaluate research. There are new political realities which social scientists, perhaps especially sociologists, have not previously had to engage. And there are also constant issues of conflicts of interest that need to be better addressed in the editorial process—and here the onus lies as much on reviewers as on journal editors to admit when one is too close to an author or an issue to make a valid judgment about the worth of the research.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common, chronic and burdensome condition requiring the individual to engage in a range of self-management strategies. The capacity to engage in self-management is dependent on a range of internal (e.g. personal) and external (e.g. health service) factors. Objectives This paper seeks to define self-management, identify the determinants which influence the individual's ability to cope and adjust to living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the community, and identify implications for clinical practice and research. Design Integrative review. Data sources Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar. Review methods Integrative review using prospective research questions. Papers were included in the review if they were published in peer reviewed journals and written in English between 2000 and 2010. Articles were accepted for inclusion if they discussed the determinants that influenced self-management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the community. Confirmation of results and discussion themes was validated by specialists in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and complex care. Findings Self-management is less well characterised in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with other chronic conditions. Functional limitation and the need to balance disease management with everyday life are the two key elements that patients face in managing their condition. Provider characteristics, socioeconomic status and health literacy are sparsely discussed yet are known to influence chronic obstructive pulmonary disease self-management. Conclusions Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease self-management must be a key focus internationally as the disease incidence increases. Collaborative care is required between patients and health providers in order facilitate patients in confident management of their condition.

Objective To analyze the output and quality of neurosurgical research published from Pakistan in indexed peer reviewed journals. Methods Indexed peer reviewed publications from 2003 to 2008 were searched for neurosurgical contributions from Pakistan. The retrieved articles were evaluated to analyze the trends of publication and quality of evidence. Results Sixty-two neurosurgical research papers (10.3 per year, range 8–13) were published from Pakistan during the study period. Twenty-four (38.7%) publications were the contribution of just four primary authors; 25 (45.3%) of the publications were original research articles and 30 (48.4%) were either case reports or case series; and 38 (61.3%) of all the publications were from just three institutions in the country. Majority of publications were pertaining to neurooncology ( n =23, 37.1%) and neurosurgical trauma ( n =16, 25.8%). Overall, 48 (77.4%) papers were published in local indexed journals and only 14 (22.6%) in international journals. There were no basic science studies, and no papers offering level 1 or 2 evidence were published during the study period. Conclusion Neurosurgical research in Pakistan over the past six years has been unsatisfactory, both in terms of number and quality of publications. Analysis of six year publications also did not show any significant improvement in research trends.

The use of peer review in second language writing has been a quite popular topic in the writing research for the past two decades. However, the question posed here is: Does peer review impact the quality of student writing? The purpose of this paper is to review peer review research published in Journal of Second Language Writing between 1992 and 2009 and to offer a critical reflection of best current practices and desirable directions for future peer review research. I argue that, in the desire to conduct more research, much attention has been paid to the qualitative study of peer review without considering the training / qualification of the peer reviewers: whether they have been sufficiently trained or not in giving useful feedback. Such studies tend to focus on the use of peer feedback checklists, often provided on a very restricted range of items, and ignore students’ short term and long term goals and attitude to the writing assignment. In this paper, I highlight trends in peer review research. I conclude by reflecting on some of the challenges and directions for future research agenda on peer review research. 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Objective Evidence on the association between client–provider interaction (CPI) and contraceptive continuation has been mixed. This paper attempts to unravel the puzzle by examining various factors that may have contributed to the mixed results. Methods This paper critically reviews key studies that examined the association between CPI and contraceptive continuation. A scan of peer reviewed publications and project reports was undertaken with a focus on CPI and contraceptive continuation. In addition, a review of key studies that examined the impact of interventions to improve CPI in compliance with medical regimens was carried out. Results The inconsistency of results may be attributed to methodological factors, characteristics of interventions to improve CPI, or conceptual factors related to the complexity of the issue of contraceptive continuation. Conclusion More rigorous research is needed to understand the role played by CPI in contraceptive continuation as well as socio-demographic, behavioral and contextual factors that moderate the relationship between CPI and contraceptive continuation. Practice implications Counseling services should be expanded to address physical, social and emotional needs of continuing clients. Moreover, interventions to improve CPI should also address contextual and health system factors that prevent clients from using family planning consistently and effectively.

Background: There is increasing evidence that hospitals are failing to meet the needs of older people. As a consequence acute care needs to be adapted to meet the needs of older people. Although initially developed for chronic conditions the Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides useful strategies for improving continuity and quality of care. Method/aim: This paper describes the elements of the CCM and discusses how a chronic care approach can improve models of care delivery for older persons in the acute care hospital settings. Discussion: The CCM provides a potentially useful approach to improve health care for older people in the acute care setting. Positive policy environments, interdisciplinary care collaboration, evidence-based practice, an emphasis on self-management strategies and empowered communities are essential elements for driving development of effective models of care. Conclusion: Models of care require a multifaceted collaborative approach for sustainability. Implementing elements of the CCM in developing models of acute care may improve patient outcomes and decrease unnecessary admissions to hospital for older people. Implications for practice: This paper provides suggestions for models of care to improve care of the older person in the acute care setting. © 2010 Royal College of Nursing, Australia.

Objective The purpose of this paper was to review the literature relating to the extension of the radiographer role in the UK National Health Service, 1995–2009; focusing on those activities where this role extension had been most pronounced. Methodology In this paper descriptive research method was used. This literature review was focused on five key research surveys together with other peer reviewed primary research articles. Government and professional bodies’ publications were also reviewed. Results The number of trusts adopting extended radiographer roles had grown considerably over the period 1995–2009, encompassing a diverse range of activities, many of which have become well established. These included radiographer reporting in ultrasound and in skeletal X-ray examinations and intravenous injection administration. Influencing factors were increased service demand, shortage of radiologists and increased capacity of radiology services and equipment.