Search

Objective: Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting. Methods: Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded. Results: A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0–7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0–2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p =0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p

In recent years, it has been proposed that unrealistic requirements for academics and medical doctors to publish in scientific journals, combined with monetary publication rewards, have led to forms of contract cheating offered by organizations known as paper mills. Paper mills are alleged to offer products ranging from research data through to ghostwritten fraudulent or fabricated manuscripts and submission services. While paper mill operations remain poorly understood, it seems likely that paper mills need to balance product quantity and quality, such that they produce or contribute to large numbers of manuscripts that will be accepted for publication. Producing manuscripts at scale may be facilitated by the use of manuscript templates, which could give rise to shared features such as textual and organizational similarities, the description of highly generic study hypotheses and experimental approaches, digital images that show evidence of manipulation and/or reuse, and/or errors affecting verifiable experimental reagents. Based on these features, we propose practical steps that editors, journal staff, and peer reviewers can take to recognize and respond to research manuscripts and publications that may have been produced with undeclared assistance from paper mills.

A very important increase in the costs of the edition of scientific journals has taken place in Venezuela, due to difficulties in obtaining imported free acid paper and other materials used for handling documents. Like other journals, Investigaci6n Clinica has been considering switching completely to a digital publication format; however there are several reasons that prevent us to doing it at this time: the journal is distributed in printed form to many national institutions, which do not have immediate access to digital information. In addition, there exists a commitment of shipment of printed issues for some international indices and in exchange with other national and foreign journals, whose printed format we receive. Another important aspect is that our University maintains a weak technological platform that makes difficult the immediacy required for the interchange with authors and consulted referees of received papers; and there is a latent danger of limitations in the use of digital technologies, due to current national politic problems. Consequently, we need to continue with the printed format, but must reduce the amount of printed issues, so as not to limit the number of papers published in each edition. Nevertheless, there is an ever increasing number of contributions from foreign researches and Investigaci6n Clinica has been recently included in two new international indices, the SEIIC from Argentina and the Infobase Index from India, reasons that obligate us to maintain our levels of excellence and commitment to our authors and readers.

A JRSM reader recently told me that she was switching back to the print publication because visiting the website (jrsm.rsmjournals.com) to read JRSM wasn't part of her routine and was never likely to be. The only way to read JRSM, then, was to pick up the print edition. We know visitors to journal websites are usually seeking specific information, a particular article that they have discovered via a web search. They may not necessarily be regular readers of your journal, and have no particular loyalty to it. Reading one article is unlikely to convert them into regular readers. The first challenge for journals, therefore, is to develop online services that will be valuable to readers and are not possible in print. Despite radio, television, the Internet, and now Kindle, people still enjoy reading a book or a journal in print. Will print journals ever disappear entirely? Many will die – eventually – but plenty will survive to satisfy our desire for touching words on a page. The journals that endure will publish much else besides research. They will major on editorials, essays and reviews. They will synthesize knowledge for a community instead of publishing random bites of information. They will also need to entertain. The second challenge for journals, therefore, is to develop a print version that will be valuable to readers without publishing research. None of this is new, these prophecies have been written for more than a decade, but the challenge is more immediate. Online-only journals, many with an author-pays model like JRSM Short Reports (shortreports.rsmjournals.com), are attracting a larger number of submissions. Their value is in publishing research quickly and being less selective about their publication policies. JRSM Short Reports is now on PubMed Central and we have applied for full indexing. The online world is moving rapidly in terms of publication of research. Meanwhile, the print world is more sedate but it needs to quicken its speed of change. Bigger, richer, weekly journals have sufficient resources to adapt and have an in built inertia that can weather the winds of change. The predicament is more acute for smaller journals, and their battle for survival, because of the laws of economics, will become more acute. These are dangerous times. JRSM floats somewhere between the big beasts of the publishing ocean and the minnows battling for survival, although our aspiration is to swim with big beasts rather than be consumed like minnows. As such, we are considering the next stage in the evolution of both print and online versions of JRSM. We have many ideas for development but we welcome suggestions from JRSM readers about how the journal might better serve their needs in print and online while positioning itself cleverly for the future of medical journals.

Local authorities throughout the UK are refining or implementing curbside recycling schemes as they attempt to achieve challenging statutory recycling targets. Despite the importance of curbside schemes there are few published studies that have reported on actual measured levels and frequency of participation by residents, hindering transferability of lessons learned nationally and internationally. This paper reports measurements and analysis over at least four weeks for three different curbside recycling schemes operating in England, with at least 1400 samples in each. It is found that the participation rate is higher in schemes that collect more types of materials. Participation rates of 38%, 49% and 65% were measured for schemes that collected 1, 2 and 3 material types, respectively. The increase appears to be related not only to extra participants setting out the additional materials, but also increased participation for the common materials. It is found that for one scheme, more households tend to set out plastics and cans compared to newspapers.

The trends in medical publishing are towards electronic versions and the use of the English language. The objective of this study was to compare general practitioners' ability to retain information when reading on paper versus on screen, and in their mother tongue versus in the English.Randomized controlled trial of 114 Scandinavian general practitioners. They read a review article for 10 minutes either on paper/in English, on screen/in English, on paper/in their mother tongue, or on screen/in their mother tongue. Afterwards they completed a questionnaire with six open questions from the article. The main outcome measure was sum score on a scale from 0 (no correct answers) to 13 (all questions answered correctly).We found no difference between readers of paper and screen versions (median (interquartile range) 4 (2-6) vs. 4 (2-5), p = 0.97). Those who read their mother tongue scored significantly higher than those who read English (4 (3-6) vs. 3 (2-4), p = 0.01).The medium (paper vs. screen) does not influence the ability of general practitioners to retain medical information. Doctors best retain medical information when reading it in their mother tongue.

ContextTo compare family physicians' ability to retain information when reading a review article on paper vs on screen, and in their mother tongue vs in English.MethodsRandomized trial of 114 Scandinavian family physicians who read a review article in October or November 2000 from the Journal of Trauma for 10 minutes either on paper and in English, on screen and in English, on paper in their mother tongue, or on screen in their mother tongue. To assess comprehension, they immediately completed a questionnaire with 6 open questions about 13 key facts from the review article. Sum score was on a scale from 0 (no correct answers) to 13 points (all questions answered correctly).ResultsThere was no significant difference between readers of paper vs screen versions, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4 (2-6) vs 4 (2-5), respectively (P = .97). Physicians who read in their mother tongue scored significantly higher than those who read in English, with a median (IQR) of 4 (3-6) vs 3 (2-4) (P = .01).ConclusionThe medium (paper vs screen) did not influence the ability of family physicians to retain medical information. They best retained medical information when reading in their mother tongue.

SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS, PHYSICIANS, OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, AND LIBRARIANS FACE A CRUCIAL DECISION TODAY: shall we nourish the biomedical archives as a viable and indispensable source of information, or shall we bury their ashes and lose a century or more of consequential scientific history? Biomedical books and journals published since the 1850s on self-destructing acidic paper are silently and insidiously scorching on our shelves. The associated risks for scientists and physicians are serious-incomplete assessment of past knowledge; unnecessary repetition of studies that have already led to conclusive results; delay in scientific advances when important concepts, techniques, instruments, and procedures are overlooked; faulty comparative analyses; or improper assignment of priority. The archives also disclose the nature of biomedical research, which builds on past knowledge, advances incrementally, and is strewn with missteps, frustrations, detours, inconsistencies, enigmas, and contradictions. The public's familiarity with the scientific process will avoid unrealistic expectations and will encourage support for research in health. But a proper historical perspective requires access to the biomedical archives. Since journals will apparently continue to be published on paper, it is folly to persist in the use of acidic paper and thus magnify for future librarians and preservationists the already Sisyphean and costly task of deacidifying their collections. Our plea for conversion to acid-free paper is accompanied by an equally strong appeal for more rigorous criteria for journal publication. The glut of journal articles-many superficial, redundant, mediocre, or otherwise flawed and some even fraudulent-has overloaded our databases, complicated bibliographic research, and exacerbated the preservation problem. Before accepting articles, journal editors should ask: If it is not worth preserving, is it worth publishing?It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of our biomedical records against all threats. Authors should consider submitting manuscripts to journals that use acid-free paper, especially if they think, as most authors do, that they are writing for posterity. Librarians can refuse to purchase journals published on acidic paper, which they know will need restoration within a few decades and will thus help deplete their budgets. All of us can urge our government to devise a coordinated national conservation policy that will halt the destruction of a century of our historical record. The battle will not be easy, but the challenge beckons urgently. The choice is ours: we can answer the call, or we can deny scientists, physicians, and historians the records they need to expand human knowledge and improve health care.

Medicine strives to preserve the achievements of the past for the benefit of future clinicians and scientists. However, the paper on which medical journals are printed is steadily and irreversibly decaying. Since the late 1800s, most medical journals have been published on paper prepared with acids. In recent years, publishers, authors, and archivists have become aware of the destructive effects of acid decay on medical journals. Though the cause of deterioration is well understood, the choice of a remedy is still controversial. Remedies include acid-free paper, computerization, deacidification, and microfilm. These techniques are reviewed for their reliability, comprehensiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Microfilm is recommended above other techniques as the most immediately promising solution. The authors propose that publishers be required by law to submit archival quality microfilm as a condition for copyright protection.

High levels of lead in pavement dusts in parts of central London have been traced to newspaper printworks in the area. Concentrations exceeding 5000 micrograms g-1, the interim 'action level' adopted by the Greater London Council, extend up to 150 m from the works, with levels of greater than 200 000 micrograms g-1 encountered close to the exit of one works. By contrast, average levels alongside 14 major roads elsewhere in London ranged from 1360 to 3400 micrograms g-1. Identification of the printworks as the probable source was based on the spatial distribution of the lead-in-dust concentrations. Confirmation came from the close association between lead and tin concentrations, tin being a constituent of the lead alloy used in the printing industry. Such an association was not found in dusts contaminated by lead from petrol or paint. Tracking out on shoes and clothing, and possibly vehicles, is the most likely route by which the lead is leaving the works.