Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A J Overbeke

Publications and source records attributed to A J Overbeke.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

[The percentage of articles which were accepted or rejected for publication in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1997].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptance and rejection percentages of articles submitted to the editors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTvG) in 1997. DESIGN: Retrospective. METHOD: The data on all articles reviewed by the editors of the NTvG in 1997 were extracted from the registration system in April 1998. These included the outcome of the review process (rejection or acceptance for publication or no definite decision yet), the article category (e.g., original article, review article), and whether the article had been solicited by the editors or was a spontaneous submission. RESULTS: In 1997, 845 articles were received. Of these 28% (240) were rejected and 59% (497) were accepted for publication. On 13% (108) no decision had been made (in April 1998). Of the articles decided upon 36% were rejected (extrapolated). 705/845 (83%) articles were unsolicited: of these 33% (235) were rejected and 54% (382) accepted; on 13% (88) the decision was pending. The solicited articles numbered 140 (17%); of these 4% (5) were rejected and 82% (115) were accepted; on 14% (20) no decision had been made yet. CONCLUSION: The rejection of articles submitted to NTvG in 1997 was 36% (in 1990 38%). Solicited articles were rejected less frequently than unsolicited ones. The yearly number of articles submitted and the rejection percentage have not changed drastically during the last eight years.

Journalism, Medical↗
PubMed1998

[Fifty years of the column 'Question and Answer'].

The section 'Question and answer' in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine) has existed for over 50 years. Medical questions of readers are published anonymously and answered by an anonymous expert consulted by the editorial staff. At first the column grew rather large but in the last few decades it shrank to only few publications a year. Due to improvements in communication (Internet) and provision of information (electronic databases) it appears that the column, as a medium for questions of readers, is becoming obsolete.

History, 20th Century↗
PubMed1998

What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine).

CONTEXT: Although criteria justifying authorship of scientific medical articles have been formulated, it is not well known how authorship is established in practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the criteria for authorship used by authors of original articles in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTVG, the Dutch Journal of Medicine), and to determine whether the criteria for authorship of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are known and applied. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. SETTING: Editorial office of the NTVG. PARTICIPANTS: All 450 authors of 115 original articles published in 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Author's contribution to study design, material, collection of data, statistics, and writing. RESULTS: Of 362 forms returned, 352 could be analyzed (78.2% response rate). The 5 questions most frequently answered affirmatively were ICMJE criteria: critical reading (86.1 % of the authors), approval of the final version (84.7%), study design (74.7%), study conception (64.2%), and revision (63.4%). Authors rated their contribution 2 points higher than did their coauthors. Interestingly, 64% of the respondents met the ICMJE criteria, although 60% of the respondents did not know them. CONCLUSION: Authorship was mostly in accordance with ICMJE criteria although many authors were not familiar with them.

Authorship↗
PubMed1998

[Reference manager: a personal database on literature for consultation and word processing].

The software programme Reference manager serves as a personal database for bibliographic references within a restricted field, especially journal articles (with abstracts). Yet it is more than a digital card index. References can be retrieved via author name, keyword, title word, year of publication, or name of periodical. During the preparation of a manuscript by means of a word processor, references can be simply indicated by one or more of these characteristics. Later Reference manager transforms these provisional references automatically into a bibliography and text references, according to the style of the journal in question. The personal database does not have to be built through laborious copying, but can be captured from Medline databases. Updating with recent references is possible by means of bibliographic services such as Current contents or Reference update.

Data Display↗
PubMed1997

[Original articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde in the last 40 years].

Original articles offer the reader of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde information about Dutch scientific research. These readers are selective but appreciative. The emphasis has shifted in the last 40 years from case histories, introduction of new techniques, literature studies and opinions, to qualitatively and methodologically adequate numerical studies, with strictly arranged presentation. The numbers of patients per study have increased substantially, and statistical processing has grown more extensive. Cost-benefit analyses appeared. The number of prospective studies remained constant.

History, 20th Century↗
PubMed1996

Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.

BACKGROUND: Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles. We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing). METHODS: 400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included. We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group. The package also included two questionnaires: the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions). The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores. We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2. FINDINGS: After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p = 0.03 or smaller). In particular, the overall score and general medical value were significantly improved (p = 0.00001 for each). Editing led to significant improvement in 11 of 16 questions (69%, p = 0.017 or smaller), and especially in style and readability (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004). Generally, we found no differences between the scores of the four categories of evaluators. 72% of the evaluators correctly identified which version was which. INTERPRETATION: Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing. We think that peer review and editing are worthwhile tasks. We also think that possible biases would have had a negligible effect on our results (including the fact that we selected the first 25 evaluators who responded, that some evaluators may have read the published version, and that one questionnaire may have looked more scientific than the other, more editorial one).

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1996

[What do reviewers look for in 'original articles' submitted for publication in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde?].

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent reviewers of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine, NTvG) use specific criteria when reviewing original articles. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Editorial office of the NTvG. METHODS: From 21 October 1993 to 1 March 1994, 89 original research manuscripts were received. Of these, 60 (67%) were submitted to reviewers. Each manuscript was sent to a second reviewer, with the same expertise, as well. On the basis of two checklists with a total of 16 quality elements, the manuscripts were analysed and compared with the chief editor's judgement. The results of each individual referee were correlated with his year of graduation. The duration of the peer review procedure was established. RESULTS: The reviewers of the NTvG responded to 46% of the explicit questions from the editors (list one), while they commented upon 43% of the criteria in the second implicit list. There was no relation with the year of graduation. Approximately 12% of the flaws in the manuscripts, as assessed by the editor, were missed. About 42% of the correct elements in the manuscript were not mentioned in the evaluation. The interrater agreement between paired reviewers was 0.26 (kappa); on average 10.4 of the 16 checkpoints were mentioned or not by both. Peer review took 41 days on average. CONCLUSION: Only a small fraction of the flaws in a manuscript were missed by the reviewers. Peer review is reasonably uniform at the NTvG, but would probably benefit from standardization.

Manuscripts, Medical as Topic↗
PubMed1994

[The ultimate fate of articles rejected for publication in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: Determining the fate of articles rejected for publication by the Dutch Medical Journal (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, NTvG). DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Editorial office of the NTvG. METHOD: Using a Medline search and questionnaire for authors, the fate of 108 manuscripts, (definitively) rejected for publication in the second half of 1992, was determined. Articles were divided according to the various headings, which they received upon submission. RESULTS: Of all the 108 rejected manuscripts, 14 were found in Medline, of which 5 had already been published, when submitted to the NTvG (4 of these were unannounced duplicate publications). The inquiry had a response rate of 84%; 93 manuscripts could be included in the study. The over-all publication percentage of rejected articles was 60% ((46/93 (49%) published, 10/93 (II%) accepted for publication)); 5 articles were published twice in different journals. The mean time lapse between rejection and publication of the articles published after rejection was II months. Of all articles published or accepted for publication (n = 62; duplicate publications included) 25 appeared in an English journal, 37 in a Dutch journal. CONCLUSION: Of articles rejected by the NTvG 60% is eventually published in another journal.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed1994

[The scientific value of society reports in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: To obtain an objective appraisal of the scientific value of abstracts of scientific meetings published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde; NTvG). DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Editorial office of the NTvG. METHOD: A search in MEDLINE was conducted for articles about research presented in 803 abstracts of 54 meetings (29 scientific associations), which appeared in the NTvG in 1988 and January 1989. Scientific associations were assigned to 4 groups (surgery, medicine, non-clinical medicine and a remaining group). RESULTS: The overall publication percentage was 48 (385 articles out of 803 presentations). Pathology abstracts showed a significantly higher percentage (65%; p < 0.01), rehabilitation and dermatology abstracts a significantly lower percentage than the overall value (6%; p < 0.00001, 27% respectively; p < 0.04). The larger part of the abstracts was published in the first 2 years after the scientific meeting. CONCLUSION: The scientific relevance of abstracts presented at Dutch scientific meetings is reasonably high, considering the publication percentage. A more rigorous selection by the scientific associations could improve the quality of the abstracts.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1993

[Randomized clinical trials in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: To collect all randomized clinical trials (RCT) published in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd) in order to present them to the Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, to be included in the international database of RCT's, which will be used to perform meta-analyses. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study. SETTING: Editorial office of Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. METHOD: All original papers (OP), published between the May 1st, 1948 and May 1st, 1993 were studied. Papers were selected that met the criteria for RCT: randomization or the similar assignment of patients to different treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 6820 OP 259 (3.8%) were selected. In 69 (26.6%) randomization seemed to be performed correctly and in 20 (7.7%) randomization was not correct; in 170 (65.6%) there was no randomization. In the period May 1st, 1948 till May 1st, 1968 24 RCT's were published, in the period May 1st, 1973 till May 1st, 1993 60. Most RCT's (78%) describe the effects of pharmaceutical treatment. CONCLUSION: RCT's as such were difficult to recognize in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Over the years there was an increase in the number of published RCT's. The problems we found with the design of RCT's and randomization are still current. An international register of published and/or planned RCT's, as envisaged by the Cochrane Centre, will make it easier to carry out meta-analyses.

Humans↗
PubMed1993

[Duplicate publication of original manuscripts in and from the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the numbers of correct (meeting the Vancouver rules) and incorrect duplicate publications of original articles (OA) in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. DESIGN: Retrospective bibliometric study followed by interviews. SETTING: The journal's editorial office. METHOD: Of the first and second author of 172 OA (all 95 OA from the first half of 1990 and all 77 OA from the first half of 1992) all biomedical publications of the same purport published in 1990-1992 were looked up. Subsequently the authors were approached by telephone to find out the background of these duplicate publications. RESULTS: Of 2 OA the corresponding articles were not found. Of the remaining 94 OA from the first half of 1990, II (12%) proved to have been published again without this fact being mentioned in a footnote as required by the rules (for which omission the journals were responsible in 4 and the authors in 7 cases). Of the remaining 76 OA from the first half of 1992, 12 were found to have been published previously, 5 in accordance with and 7 (9%) against the rules. Duplicate publication against the rules was to be attributed to incorrect interpretation of the Vancouver rules by the authors. CONCLUSION: Of the OA in the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd a minimum of 14% are or have already been published elsewhere, 11% without this fact being stated as required by the Vancouver rules.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1992

[Meeting reports in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde; value for readers and associations].

OBJECTIVE: To determine the objective of scientific association proceedings in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTvG) and whether the objective is met by publication. DESIGN: Interview. SETTING: The editorial office of NTvG MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical relevancy of the proceedings published in 1990 and 1991 was determined using selection criteria. 53 (former) secretaries of scientific associations which publish their proceedings in NTvG were interviewed by written questionnaire, and 101 physicians were interviewed by telephone, asking for their opinion on the objective and the use of publishing the proceedings. RESULTS: Of the proceedings (1610 abstracts) published in 1990 and 1991 20% were considered clinically relevant. The opinion of the secretaries of the associations was that the objective of the proceedings is to record medical information and to provide a medical newspaper for the latest reports of the associations, mostly intended for all readers of the NTvG. The secretaries usually correct the abstracts with respect to form and to a lesser extent to informative value. Editorial office selection of the abstracts was not considered desirable, guidelines with regard to writing an abstract of the proceedings were appreciated. More than half of the family physicians read the proceedings, but often considered them too specialised. Half of these thought editorial office selection of the abstracts advisable. About 80% of the specialists read the proceedings, of which the informative value was considered variable. They disapproved of editorial selection. In general physicians read the proceedings very selectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical relevancy of the abstracts of the proceedings leaves much to be desired. The objective is to provide a medical record and a newspaper for all readers, but these read the proceedings very selectively. The informative value could be improved. Abstract selection should be in the hands of the associations' secretaries only, but guidelines from the editorial office on writing abstracts are welcomed.

Congresses as Topic↗