Major Journals (major + journal)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Publishing in the Majors: A Comparison of Accounting, Finance, Management, and Marketing,

CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, Issue 1 2004
EDWARD P. SWANSON
Abstract Business schools evaluate publication records, especially for the promotion and tenure decision, by comparing the quality and quantity of a candidate's research with those of peers within the same discipline (intradisciplinary) and with those of academics from other business disciplines (interdisciplinary). A recently developed analytical model of the research review process provides theory about the norms used by editors and referees in deciding whether to publish research papers. The model predicts that interdisciplinary differences exist in quality norms, which could result in disparity among business disciplines in the number of top-tier articles published. I examine the period from 1980 to 1999 and, consistent with the theory, find that significant differences exist in the number of articles and proportion of doctoral faculty who published in the "major" journals in accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Most notably, the proportion of doctoral faculty publishing a major article is 1.4 to 2.4 times greater in the other business disciplines than in accounting (depending on the set of journals). The theory also predicts an upward drift over time in the quality norms used by referees. Consistent with a drift, the number of articles published has declined substantially in marketing and, to a lesser extent, in the other business disciplines. [source]


Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 2 2007
P. Gallagher MB MRCPI
Summary Background and objective:, Drug therapy is necessary to treat acute illness, maintain current health and prevent further decline. However, optimizing drug therapy for older patients is challenging and sometimes, drug therapy can do more harm than good. Drug utilization review tools can highlight instances of potentially inappropriate prescribing to those involved in elderly pharmacotherapy, i.e. doctors, nurses and pharmacists. We aim to provide a review of the literature on potentially inappropriate prescribing in the elderly and also to review the explicit criteria that have been designed to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. Methods:, We performed an electronic search of the PUBMED database for articles published between 1991 and 2006 and a manual search through major journals for articles referenced in those located through PUBMED. Search terms were elderly, inappropriate prescribing, prescriptions, prevalence, Beers criteria, health outcomes and Europe. Results and discussion:, Prescription of potentially inappropriate medications to older people is highly prevalent in the United States and Europe, ranging from 12% in community-dwelling elderly to 40% in nursing home residents. Inappropriate prescribing is associated with adverse drug events. Limited data exists on health outcomes from use of inappropriate medications. There are no prospective randomized controlled studies that test the tangible clinical benefit to patients of using drug utilization review tools. Existing drug utilization review tools have been designed on the basis of North American and Canadian drug formularies and may not be appropriate for use in European countries because of the differences in national drug formularies and prescribing attitudes. Conclusion:, Given the high prevalence of inappropriate prescribing despite the widespread use of drug-utilization review tools, prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify useful interventions. Drug utilization review tools should be designed on the basis of a country's national drug formulary and should be evidence based. [source]


Pluralism and diversity: trends in the use and application of ordination methods 1990-2007

JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE, Issue 4 2009
Henrik Von Wehrden
Abstract Question: What are the trends and patterns in the application of ordination techniques in vegetation science since 1990? Location: Worldwide literature analysis. Methods: Evaluation of five major journals of vegetation science; search of all ISI-listed ecological journals. Data were analysed with ANCOVAs, Spearman rank correlations, GLMs, biodiversity indices and simple graphs. Results: The ISI search retrieved fewer papers that used ordinations than the manual evaluation of five selected journals. Both retrieval methods revealed a clear trend in increasing frequency of ordination applications from 1990 to the present. Canonical Correspondence Analysis was far more frequently detected by the ISI search than any other method. Applications such as Correspondence Analysis/Reciprocal Averaging and Detrended Correspondence Analysis have increasingly been used in studies published in "applied" journals, while Canonical Correspondence Analysis, Redundancy Analysis and Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling were more frequently used in journals focusing on more "basic" research. Overall, Detrended Correspondence Analysis was the most commonly applied method within the five major journals, although the number of publications slightly decreased over time. Use of Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling has increased over the last 10 years. Conclusion: The availability of suitable software packages has facilitated the application of certain techniques such as Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling. However, choices of ordination techniques are currently less driven by the constraints imposed by the software; there is also limited evidence that the choice of methods follows social considerations such as the need to use fashionable methods. Methodological diversity has been maintained or has even increased over time and reflects the researcher's need for diverse analytical tools suitable to address a wide range of questions. [source]


Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication,,

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, Issue 5 2007
FISPE (Chair), William N. Kelly Pharm D
Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide sufficient details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' web sites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events. Copyright 2007 Kelly et al. Reproduced with permission by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]