Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PUBLISHING”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

A demographic analysis of the origin of papers published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain temporal trends in the number and share of papers originating from work sites in the ten districts of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and to identify demographic predictors of variance among the districts. METHODS: The work sites of the first authors of papers published in Obstetrics & Gynecology were determined for selected years since 1985 and sorted by ACOG district. Three related journals (Fertility and Sterility, Gynecologic Oncology, and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were similarly analyzed for the year 2000. Demographic variables, including numbers of ACOG Fellows, residencies, subspecialty fellowships, and medical schools, were analyzed with multivariable regression for the most predictive variables for number of papers among ACOG districts. RESULTS: The number and share of papers published in Obstetrics & Gynecology written by authors working in ACOG districts have been declining steadily since 1985, in contrast to the number of papers arising from locations outside of ACOG districts. Analysis of demographic factors for number of papers from four specialty journals in the year 2000 revealed that the number of medical schools in the district (R(2) = 0.79) was the most predictive (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Efforts to identify and correct factors associated with a decline in the number of published papers should focus on conditions in medical schools.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry.

In the late 1980s, the international tobacco industry assisted in the establishment of the International Society of the Built Environment, which published the journal Indoor and Built Environment. Using evidence from tobacco industry documents, we examine the industry associations of the Society's executive, the journal's editor and board, and the extent to which the journal publishes papers on environmental tobacco smoke that would be deemed favourable by the tobacco industry. The society's executive has been dominated by paid consultants to the tobacco industry: all six members in 1992 and seven of eight members in 2002 had financial associations through industry lawyers. 67% of the editorial board in 1992 and 66% in 2002 had histories of financial associations with the tobacco industry. 61% (40/66) of papers related to environmental tobacco smoke published in Indoor and Built Environment in the study period reached conclusions that could be judged to be industry-positive. Of these, 90% (36/40) had at least one author with a history of association with the tobacco industry. The executive of the International Society of the Built Environment and the editorial board of Indoor and Built Environment are in large part consisted of people with histories of consultancies to the tobacco industry. On the basis of the evidence presented in this paper, there is a serious concern the tobacco industry may have been unduly influential on the content of the journal.

Air Pollution, Indoor↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals.

Although randomised trials are important for evidence-based medicine, little is known about their overall characteristics. We assessed the epidemiology and reporting of methodological details for all 519 PubMed-indexed randomised trials published in December, 2000 (383 [74%] parallel-group, 116 [22%] crossover). 482 (93%) were published in specialty journals. A median of 80 participants (10th-90th percentile 25-369) were recruited for parallel-group trials. 309 (60%) were blinded. Power calculation, primary outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and handling of attrition were each adequately described in less than half of publications. The small sample sizes are worrying, and poor reporting of methodological characteristics will prevent reliable quality assessment of many published trials.

Publishing↗
PubMed2000

Early initiation of post-PEG feeding: do published recommendations affect clinical practice?

Since its introduction in 1980, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the procedure of choice for long-term enteral feeding in patients who are unable to take adequate oral nutrition. Traditionally, gastroenterologists have waited for 24 hr after PEG tube placement before initiating feedings. However, recently published data have described the safety and efficacy of initiating PEG tube feedings as early as 3 hr after PEG tube placement. The objectives of this study were to determine how many hours after PEG tube placement practicing gastroenterologists initiate feedings and to determine whether they were aware of the pertinent literature. A four-page questionnaire was mailed to 35 practicing gastroenterologists, and the data gathered were analyzed using the SAS statistical package. A majority (81.5%) were aware of articles published in the last six years regarding the safety and efficacy of early initiation of feeding after PEG; of interest, however, only 10.7% were initiating feedings less than 3 hr after PEG tube placement. In conclusion, there exists a discrepancy between published recommendations and clinical practice regarding early initiation of feedings after PEG tube placement in this group of gastroenterologists who were surveyed.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Delay and failure to publish dental research.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and time taken to full publication of abstracts presented at dental scientific meetings. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: All abstracts from the 1993 proceedings of the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and a 10% random sample of abstracts from the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) conferences. METHODS: A cross-referenced Medline search of abstract title and authors was undertaken to determine whether abstracts had been published as full papers. Searches were censored 1 year prior to and 5 years post publication as an abstract. Publication rate was compared between abstracts presented orally and as posters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication as a full paper and time taken to publication. RESULTS: 546 abstracts were investigated. 252 abstracts (46.1%) were found as full reports. Median time to publication of all abstracts was 18 months (IQR 9, 30 months). 99 of the oral abstracts (57%) and 153 (41%) of the poster abstracts were published. Relative Risk Oral vs Poster=1.37 CI (1.19, 1.55). CONCLUSION: More than half of the research presented at EOS, IADR and ORCA in 1993 remained unpublished 5 years after presentation at the conference. Oral presentations were published more frequently than poster presentations.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2001

The accuracy of MEDLINE and Journal contents pages for papers published in Clinical Otolaryngology.

MEDLINE is widely used as a source for identifying and reviewing medical journal literature. Its accuracy is generally taken for granted, as is that of the contents pages published by the journals themselves. In this study of citation accuracy we examined the articles published in Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences from 1976 to 1998. The entries in MEDLINE were compared with the entries in the Journal's contents pages, and with the actual articles. Of 1651 articles published in the journal, one was omitted from MEDLINE and 25 (1.5%) were incorrectly cited, while 88 (5.3%) were incorrectly cited in the contents pages. Twenty-one (84%) of the errors in MEDLINE involved names of authors. Apart from incomplete retrieval of information for practice and research, errors could result in an author not getting credit for publications.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2001

Control of bias in randomized controlled trials published in prosthodontic journals.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have become the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment interventions. If not properly controlled, bias in the design of trial methodology can affect the validity of the study results. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the methodological quality of RCTs published in 3 prosthodontic journals over a 10-year period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Issues of The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, and The Journal of Prosthodontics published between 1988 and 1997 were searched manually to identify RCTs. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to identify articles about studies that qualified as RCTs. Two independent reviewers evaluated all qualified RCTs on the basis of how potential sources of bias in the trial methodology were controlled. Three areas-control of bias at entry, control of bias in assessment of outcome, and control of bias after entry-were evaluated with a scheme developed through the Cochrane Collaboration. A score of 1 or 0 was assigned for each of the 3 potential sources of bias, with the maximum quality score for an RCT being 3 (good bias control) and the minimum 0 (poor control). Frequencies were calculated for each dimension of trial methodology and overall quality scores of the RCTs. RESULTS: Sixty-two RCTs were identified from 3631 articles screened. The method of randomization was explicit in only 47% of the RCTs. Forty percent of RCTs incorporated blinding in the assessment of outcome, and 76% accounted for all subjects at the end of the study. Overall quality scores revealed that only 16% of RCTs attempted to control bias in all 3 areas examined. Forty percent were deficient in 1 area, 34% were deficient in 2 areas, and 10% were deficient in all areas examined. CONCLUSION: The quality of RCTs published in prosthodontic journals may be improved by minimizing potential sources of bias and adequately reporting trial methodology.

Dental Research↗
PubMed2006

Publishing HIV/AIDS behavioural science reports: An author's guide.

The purpose of this paper is to report on characteristics of journals that publish manuscripts in the HIV/AIDS behavioural science realm, with the goal of providing assistance to authors seeking to disseminate their work in the most appropriate outlet. Fifty journals who publish behavioural research on HIV/AIDS in English were identified through library and electronic searches. Although ten of the journals focused specifically on HIV/AIDS, the majority of journals are in related fields, including health psychology/behavioural medicine, sexual behaviour, substance abuse, public health/prevention or general medicine. Acceptance rates ranged from 8- 89% with a mean acceptance rate of 39%. Reported review times ranged from 1-12 months with three months the mode, while publication lag following acceptance averages six months. Acceptance rates were related to impact factors, with more selective journals evidencing higher impact factors. The variety of publication outlets available to authors of HIV/AIDS behavioral science studies creates ample opportunity for dissemination, as well as challenge for readers in discerning the quality of published work.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMedDate not supplied

An approach to publishing an edited book.

This article outlines the steps taken by the authors to publish a co-edited nursing research book to assist nurses interested in editing a book or writing a book chapter. The authors' experiences are used to help illustrate the preparation and editing of manuscripts. Collaboration among co-editors, chapter authors (contributors), and the staff of the publishing company is vital when publishing an edited book.

Books↗
PubMed1995

The "ups" and "downs" of getting published.

One stumbling block to writing is the variety of emotional reactions a prospective author must negotiate: the "ups" and "downs" of publishing. An impressive publishing track record does not necessarily mean an author will avoid anxiety, self-doubt or the fear of rejection. A conceptual schema outlines the phases in the publishing process and the associated potentially problematic emotional reactions.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2004

An evaluation of neuroscience nursing research published during the Decade of the Brain.

The purpose of this study was to extend a previous evaluation of neuroscience nursing research to an assessment of the research published during the 1990s--the Decade of the Brain. The evaluation was conducted to assess the focus of neuroscience nursing research and to identify research strategies and scientific methods. The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, Nursing Research, Research in Nursing & Health, and Western Journal of Nursing Research were canvassed. An assessment form developed by the authors was used to evaluate selected articles published between January 1989 and December 2000. The number of neuroscience research studies published in nursing journals increased substantially during the 1990s. The studies focused more on individuals with neurological disorders and less on neurological trauma. The findings demonstrated major changes in subspecialty area, care orientation, and nature of study variables from that observed in the previous evaluation in which acute care and physiological variables were most representative of the pre-1989 studies. As noted in the previous evaluation, the trend toward theory-then-research studies continued and the scientific methods grew more complex.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM.

The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzeby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429-1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the 'correct names' (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank does not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no 'official character', other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific community.

Bacteria↗
PubMed2005

Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM.

The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzéby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429-1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the 'correct names' (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank does not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no 'official character', other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific community.

Bacteria↗
PubMed2004

Is clinical otolaryngology publishing patient-centred research?

We asked how patient centred is Clinical Otolaryngology? Using two new models for analysing the patient-centredness of medical literature, three reviewers classified 176 papers (91 articles and 85 abstracts) published in this journal during the year 2000. Patients appeared as clinical subjects in 98 (56%), were interviewed by closed questionnaires in 21 (12%) and open questionnaires in 6 (3%), represented only by demographic details in 40 (23%) and not part of the study in 11 (6%) of papers. Papers were considered to address a biomedical frame of reference in 48 (27%), the patient's frame of reference in 6 (3%), technical aspects of the clinical encounter in 109 (62%) and communicative aspects in 7 (4%), and the setting for the encounter in 6 (3%) of papers. We show that some patient-centred research is published in Clinical Otolaryngology but suggest that it could publish more.

Animals↗
PubMed1995

The shortfall in published research: a study of nurses' research and publication activities.

Although in recent years there has been increasing pressure on nurses to become more research minded, available evidence still suggests that there is a significant shortfall in published nursing research. To date, it has not been clear whether this lack of output is a function of nurses' failure either to conduct research in the first place or to get it published. It is self-evident that if patient care is to be enhanced through research, then the reasons for the low output must be investigated systematically in order to understand the precise nature of the problem. Therefore, a national survey of 230 nurses was undertaken in order to ascertain the reasons underpinning the low publication rate. A questionnaire, comprising sections on biographical information, research activities and attitudes to research was distributed to a random sample of nurses and the results were analysed using techniques of descriptive and inferential statistics. The results suggest that the observed shortfall in published research is not a product of nurses' failure to conduct research projects but rather of their reluctance to submit their findings for publication. This reluctance seemed for the majority of respondents to be the result of a pronounced lack of confidence. The findings from this survey are discussed with reference to future professional development programmes.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

AIDS/HIV articles published in selected professional health journals: 1981-1990.

Journals from five professional associations were reviewed to determine the response to AIDS/HIV in their journal: Association for the Advancement of Health Education (AAHE) and Journal of Health Education; American College Health Association (ACHA) and Journal of American College Health; American Public Health Association (APHA) and American Journal of Public Health; American School Health Association (ASHA) and Journal of School Health, and the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE) and Health Education Quarterly. The project posed the following questions: 1) How many articles on AIDS/HIV were published in the selected journals during the 10-year period from 1981 through 1990?; 2) What types of articles were published during the period, such as editorials, recommendations, guidelines, and research?; and 3) What approaches were shown effective in changing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior? The first article appeared in 1984; 239 articles were published in the five journals reviewed. Each journal devoted at least one entire issue to AIDS/HIV. The articles were categorized as either applied (43.9%) or data-based (56.1%). Since most articles with a research focus did not include pretest and posttest measurements, it proved difficult to determine the most effective methods for changing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Evaluation methods that assess the effectiveness of interventions in changing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior are needed.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2005

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals.

AIM: To evaluate the quality of reporting of all diagnostic studies published in five major ophthalmic journals in the year 2002 using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters. METHODS: Manual searching was used to identify diagnostic studies published in 2002 in five leading ophthalmic journals, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), Archives of Ophthalmology (Archives), British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (IOVS), and Ophthalmology. The STARD checklist of 25 items and flow chart was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. RESULTS: A total of 16 publications were included (AJO = 5, Archives = 1, BJO = 2, IOVS = 2, and Ophthalmology = 6). More than half of the studies (n = 9) were related to glaucoma diagnosis. Other specialties included retina (n = 4) cornea (n = 2), and neuro-ophthalmology (n = 1). The most common description of diagnostic accuracy was sensitivity and specificity values, published in 13 articles. The number of fully reported items in evaluated studies ranged from eight to 19. Seven studies reported more than 50% of the STARD items. CONCLUSIONS: The current standards of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests are highly variable. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological↗
PubMed2005

Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.

OBJECTIVE: To explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals. DESIGN: Semistructured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003. RESULTS: Authors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors. CONCLUSIONS: Authors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.

Adult↗