Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
High-impact Journals (high-impact + journal)
Selected AbstractsA Survey of Evidence in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Oncology Manuscripts from 1999 to 2007JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE, Issue 1 2010A. Sahora Objectives: To survey and monitor trends in evidence for oncology manuscripts published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine (JVIM) between 1999 and 2007 based on an evidence-based medicine (EBM) standard. Methods: All veterinary oncology-related articles published in JVIM and 7 other high-impact journals from 1999 to 2007 were collected by database searches. Relevant manuscripts then were characterized including investigator affiliation, subject matter investigated, retrospective or prospective study design, manuscript type, and classifications of manuscripts using an EBM standard. Results: A total of 172 relevant veterinary oncology manuscripts were identified in JVIM between 1999 and 2007. The proportion of oncology manuscripts published each year rose with the total number of manuscripts published in JVIM (mean, 13%; range, 8,15%). The author affiliations and subject matter were similar during this evaluation period. Case series represented the most common manuscript type (40%). With the exception of a progressive increase in prospective manuscripts and a reduction in case reports, no significant changes in the classification of manuscripts using EBM standards were seen. During this same period, veterinary oncology manuscripts published in 7 high-impact journals were associated with higher standards of evidence including prospective studies and randomized trials. Conclusions: The standards of evidence for veterinary oncology manuscripts published in JVIM have remained static between 1999 and 2007. This survey provides an informative benchmark for the state of evidence in previous JVIM oncology manuscripts and may be useful in identifying specific opportunities that may raise the standards of evidence in future publications in JVIM. [source] Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatologyARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM, Issue 3 2002Catherine L. Hill Objective To assess the quality of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology and to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between 2 time periods, 1987,1988 and 1997,1998. Methods Using MEDLINE and a hand search of selected rheumatology journals, we identified RCTs of adult rheumatic diseases published in English in 1987,1988 or 1997,1998. We examined trial quality with an expanded version of the Jadad scale, which assesses the adequacy of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis. All trials were read by 1 reviewer, with prior standardization using a random sample read by 2 reviewers. We also evaluated "high"- versus "low"-impact journals based on citation index. Results Two hundred forty RCTs (1987,1988 119 RCTs, 1997,1998 121 RCTs) were assessed. Results showed improvement in the quality of the trials, but the rates of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low. Low rates of reports of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the high-impact journals. Conclusion There has been improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs in rheumatology between 1987,1988 and 1997,1998. However, methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, lack of reporting of power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common. Many of these problems are established sources of bias in RCTs and are easily rectifiable. [source] Out of the Loop: Why Research Rarely Reaches Policy Makers and the Public and What Can be DoneBIOTROPICA, Issue 5 2009Patricia Shanley ABSTRACT Most of the world's population that derives their livelihoods or part of their livelihoods from forests are out of the information loop. Exclusion of public users of natural resources from access to scientific research results is not an oversight; it is a systemic problem that has costly ramifications for conservation and development. Results of a survey of 268 researchers from 29 countries indicate that institutional incentives support the linear, top-down communication of results through peer-reviewed journal articles, which often guarantees positive performance measurement. While the largest percentage of respondents (34%) ranked scientists as the most important audience for their work, only 15 percent of respondents considered peer-reviewed journals effective in promoting conservation and/or development. Respondents perceived that local initiatives (27%) and training (16%) were likely to lead to success in conservation and development; but few scientists invest in these activities. Engagement with the media (5%), production of training and educational materials (4%) and popular publications (5%) as outlets for scientific findings was perceived as inconsequential (<14%) in measuring scientific performance. Less than 3 percent of respondents ranked corporate actors as an important audience for their work. To ensure science is shared with those who need it, a shift in incentive structures is needed that rewards actual impact rather than only ,high-impact' journals. Widely used approaches and theoretical underpinnings from the social sciences, which underlie popular education and communication for social change, could enhance communication by linking knowledge and action in conservation biology. [source] | ||||||||||