Search

Women authors are under-represented in academic medicine and academic publishing. We examined the representation of women in key authorship positions in psychiatric journals in India as well as time trends in female authorship across a decade. All articles originating from India and published in two leading Indian psychiatry journals during 2019-2020 were examined and compared with articles published in these journals during 2009-2010. Important outcomes examined were representations of women as first author, corresponding author, and last author, and the number of women in authorship lists. A total of 817 articles was analyzed; of these, 251 (30.7%) were published during 2009-2010 and 566 (69.3%) during 2019-2020. Women first-authored just over a quarter of the articles (n = 218, 26.7%). Nearly half of the articles (n = 389, 47.6%) had no woman author. Representation of women in key authorship positions and in total authorship increased significantly across time. Notably, the proportion of women first authors significantly increased for original papers (24.5% in 2009-2010 vs 38.1% in 2019-2020, p = 0.011). Gender gap in academic psychiatry publishing in India has narrowed during the past decade but is still evident. There is a need to identify and address factors that could narrow the gender gap., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Though peer review is at the heart of scholarly publishing, peer review reports are not commonly investigated. We aimed to analyse the quality and structure of review reports submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM)., Methods: We systematically analysed the structure, tone, and quality of peer review reports of all original articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018 to May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was done using the 8-item Review Quality Instrument (RQI)., Results: A total of 527 review reports from 291 original articles were analysed. More than two-thirds of review reports were provided as inline comments (n = 368, 69.8 %). Most of the review reports were not well-structured; only a few provided a summary (n = 64, 13.2 %) or divided the comments into major and minor ones (n = 12, 2.5 %). Nearly a quarter had negative wordings (n = 117, 24.1 %) and a minority had a frankly unprofessional tone (n = 43, 8.8 %). The global rating was "poor" (n = 266, 50.5 %) or "below average" (n = 203, 38.5 %) for most reports., Conclusion: Most of the peer reviews submitted to the IJPM were not structured and obtained low scores on the RQI domains. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the quality of peer reviews and to provide training for reviewers., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Selective publication of studies has important scientific, ethical, and public health implications. Aim: We studied selective publication among mood disorder research protocols registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) database. We also examined the frequency and nature of protocol deviations among the published articles. Methods: Using a systematic search strategy, we examined the publication status of all mood disorder-related research protocols registered in the CTRI database from inception till December 31, 2019. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with selective publication. Results: Of 129 eligible protocols identified, only a third (n = 43, 33.3%) were published in literature; among those published, only 28 (21.7%) were placed in MEDLINE indexed journals. Protocol deviations were observed in more than half of the published papers (n = 25, 58.1%); many of these (41.9%) were related to sample size deviations, though, importantly, deviations in primary and secondary outcomes were also noted (16.2%). Retrospective registration of trials (odds ratio, 2.98, 95% confidence interval, 1.32--6.71) was significantly associated with publication; other variables, such as funding status or multicentric sampling, were not associated with eventual publication. Conclusions: Two out of three mood disorder research protocols registered in India do not translate into published research. These findings from a low- and middle-income country with limited spending on health care research and development represent wastage of resources and raise scientific and ethical concerns about unpublished data and futile patient participation in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the publication outcomes of submissions rejected by specialty psychiatry journals. We aimed to investigate the publication fate of original research manuscripts previously rejected by the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM). Methods: A random sampling of manuscripts was drawn from all submissions rejected between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Using the titles of these papers and the author names, a systematic search of electronic databases was carried out to examine if these manuscripts have been published elsewhere or not. We extracted data on a range of scientific and nonscientific parameters from the journal's manuscript management portal for every rejected manuscript. Multivariable analysis was used to detect factors associated with eventual publication. Results: Out of 302 manuscripts analyzed, 139 (46.0%) were published elsewhere; of these, only 18 articles (13.0%) were published in a journal with higher standing than IJPM. Manuscripts of foreign origin (odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06–2.97) and rejection following peer review or editorial re-review (OR 2.41, 95% CI = 1.22–4.74) were significantly associated with publication. Conclusion: Nearly half of the papers rejected by IJPM were eventually published in other journals, though such papers are more often published in journals with lower standing. Manuscripts rejected following peer review were more likely to reach full publication status compared to those which were desk rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No analysis of redundant or duplicate publications, deemed unethical and unscientific, has been undertaken in psychiatric literature. Aim: To analyze the proportion and patterns of redundant publications associated with index articles published in two major Indian psychiatry journals. Methods: Index articles were original papers published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry and the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine between 2015 and 2017. Using a systematic search strategy that combined author names and article keywords, we combed the literature to identify and characterize redundant publications related to these index articles. Redundant publications were classified into one of the following categories using a priori definitions: dual, suspected dual, salami slicing, meat extender, and extended sample publication. Results: From 324 index articles screened, a total of 27 articles (8.4%) were identified to have 32 associated redundant publications of the following types: dual (n = 3), suspected dual (n = 2), salami slicing (n = 22), meat extender (n = 3), and extended sample publication (n = 2). A majority of the redundant articles (n = 23, 71.9%) failed to clearly cross-reference the prior publication(s). We also identified nine non-redundant but related publications with no proper cross-referencing in five of them. Conclusion: Redundant publications are a common practice in the psychiatry journals screened. Salami slicing is the most common form of redundancy, with no proper cross-referencing in most cases. Concerted efforts are needed to detect and deal with this concerning practice that undermines both science and ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A proportion of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals get rejected, for varied reasons. A systematic analysis of the reasons for rejection will be relevant to editors, reviewers, and prospective authors. We aimed to analyze the reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine , the flagship journal of Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. Methods: We performed a content analysis of the rejection reports of all the articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018, and May 15, 2020. Rejection reports were extracted from the manuscript management website and divided into three types: desk rejections, post-peer-review rejections, and post-editorial-re-review rejections. They were analyzed separately for the rejection reasons, using a predefined coding frame. Results: A total of 898 rejection reports were available for content analysis. Rejection was a common fate for manuscripts across the types of submission; figures ranged from 26.7% for viewpoint articles to 72.1% for review articles. The median time to desk rejection was 3 days, while the median time to post-peer-review rejection and post-editorial-re-review rejection was 42 days and 96 days, respectively. The most common reasons for desk rejection were lack of novelty or being out of the journal's scope. Inappropriate study designs, poor methodological descriptions, poor quality of writing, and weak study rationale were the most common rejection reasons mentioned by both peer reviewers and editorial re-reviewers. Conclusions: Common reasons for rejection included poor methodology and poorly written manuscripts. Prospective authors should pay adequate attention to conceptualization, design, and presentation of their study, apart from selecting an appropriate journal, to avoid rejection and enhance their manuscript's chances of publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]