Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?
Methods and Results
We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009.
Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.
European Regulation 1924/2006 states that all health claims made on foods need to be substantiated scientifically.
To apply the PASSCLAIM criteria for the scientific substantiation of health claims on foods to herbal supplements containing Ginkgo biloba. Evaluation of three selected claimed health effects for G. biloba (improvement of blood circulation, improvement of symptoms of old age, and improvement of memory) was achieved through review of publicly available scientific data. A total of 35 human intervention studies were evaluated. Commercially available products claimed to contain mainly G. biloba (N=29) were randomly sampled in the Netherlands and analyzed for their content on ginkgo extract. Also, a toxicological risk assessment was performed.
The three selected health claims investigated could not be substantiated. This was mainly because of a lack of data from studies in healthy volunteers. In most studies results performed with a 24% standardized G. biloba extract were described. However, our chemical analysis showed that 25 of the 29 sampled products did not contain the required minimum 24% standardized extract. Moreover, in most preparations the content of substances typical for G. biloba did not conform to what was declared on the label. Since toxicity data for G. biloba are very limited, a safety limit could not be established.
Evidence is lacking for three health claims of herbal products with G. biloba. Neither safety nor efficacy can be guaranteed at the recommended daily dose. The multidisciplinary approach described in this paper provides good insight into issues that are relevant for the evaluation of health claims for herbal food supplements.
Ginkgo biloba; health claims; substantiation; botanicals; content; safety
The purpose of this investigation was to produce a title list of current journals supplying upwards of 75 percent of demand at the Columbia and Yale Medical Libraries. Columbia received nearly 2,000 journals and Yale over 1,500; findings are based upon an analysis of canceled charge slips for issues published from 1959 through June 1962. This combined study of recorded usage for six months in the Columbia Medical Library (12.9 percent of circulation during January through June 1962) and for one year in the Yale Medical Library (12.5 percent of 1961/62 circulation) revealed that a core of 262 journals supplied 80 percent of use of titles published in the 1959 to mid-1962 period. However, it is probable that current issues of all titles received were used at least once within the libraries. Titles of sixty-seven journals which supplied slightly more than 50 percent of use are listed.
The Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) is a bimonthly scientific journal, publishing mostly original articles. It is indexed in the Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, and the Science Citation Index – expanded.
Since the CMJ’s 15th anniversary in 2007, our aim has been to assess the importance of the journal through its impact factor (IF) and immediacy index, with a particular focus placed on the proportion of self-citations.
According the Web of Knowledge database, the current official IF for CMJ is 0.825, ranking it at the 62nd place out of 103 journals within the Thomson Scientific category “Medicine – General and Internal.” The exclusion of self-citations resulted in a small decrease in the journal’s rank – to 66th place.
According to the Web of Science database, the predicted CMJ IF in 2007 is between 1.024 and 1.125, showing a clear increase. The immediacy index of the CMJ is continuously low, with a high contribution of self-citations, implying that articles published in the CMJ require more time to be cited, and that their topics are of particular interest to the journal's readers and contributors.
Self-citations contributed significantly to the IF in the first few years after the journal was established. The proportion of independent citations progressively increased, and of all the citations included in the IF in 2007, almost 70% were fully independent. Some of these citations were from articles published in journals with IF higher than 5.
Taken together, our data suggest that CMJ has significantly improved its citation data during the last 15 years, confirming that a quality-oriented editorial policy in a small peripheral journal may result in a truly increased international visibility.
Clinicians and researchers use the medical literature in a variety of ways. The overwhelming volume of clinical journals necessitates tools to help healthcare professionals identify and employ relevant information. The structured abstract can facilitate browsing articles, but may not contain appropriate types of information or sufficient detail for all uses of the medical literature. We have created customized views of journal articles that provide information for specific research or clinical tasks, such as evaluating the scientific validity of a clinical trial. These summaries are called extracts because we literally extract information of a particular type from the full text of an article. We employ a context-based indexing scheme, previously designed for improving precision in literature searches, to automatically generate extracts from clinical research articles. In this paper, we present an evaluation of the content and utility of these task-specific extracts. Our results provide preliminary evidence that such extracts contain information that is relevant to clinical and research tasks and may facilitate understanding and use of the medical literature.
Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as ‘secondary research’ and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.
We identified the 118 journals labelled as “core clinical journals” by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals’ editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.
The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as “Review” or “Feature article”. Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.
Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of ‘original research’ in the context of SRs is warranted.
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is an Open Access, online, electronic journal published by BioMed Central with full contents available to the scientific and medical community free of charge to all readers. Authors maintain the copyright to their own work, a policy facilitating dissemination of data to the widest possible audience without requiring permission from the publisher. This Open Access publishing model is subsidized by authors (or their institutions/funding agencies) in the form of a single £330 article processing charge (APC), due at the time of manuscript acceptance for publication. Payment of the APC is not a condition for formal peer review and does not apply to articles rejected after review. Additionally, this fee is waived for authors whose institutions are BioMed Central members or where genuine financial hardship exists. Considering ordinary publication fees related to page charges and reprints, the APC at Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is comparable to costs associated with publishing in some traditional print journals, and is less expensive than many. Implementation of the APC within this Open Access framework is envisioned as a modern research-friendly policy that supports networking among investigators, brings new research into reach rapidly, and empowers authors with greater control over their own scholarly publications.
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction is an open access, online, peer-review journal publishing papers on all aspects of research into reproductive endocrinology, infertility, bioethics and the advanced reproductive technologies. The journal reports on important developments impacting the field of human reproductive medicine and surgery. The field exists as a sub-specialty of obstetrics & gynecology, focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of complex human reproductive problems. The continued growth of this relatively new field depends on quality research by proven scientists as well as junior investigators who, together, make contributions to this area of medical and surgical practice. The publishing revolution made possible by internet technology presages a bright future for continued interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers. Against this background, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction exists for the scientific community to facilitate this scholarly dialogue.
publishing; reproductive medicine; internet; research; trends
A small group of members of the American Society for Clinical Investigation began chatting in 1916 about the possibility of launching a new biomedical research journal. By October 1924, they managed to make the idea a reality with the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Our 80th birthday seems an appropriate time to reflect on the history of biomedical science as it has been played out on our pages.
One hundred years ago, in 1909, the American Society for Clinical Investigation
(ASCI) held its first annual meeting. The founding members based this new society on
a revolutionary approach to research that emphasized newer physiological methods. In
1924 the ASCI started a new journal, the Journal of Clinical
Investigation. The ASCI has also held an annual meeting almost every year.
The society has long debated who could be a member, with discussions about whether
members must be physicians, what sorts of research they could do, and the role of
women within the society. The ASCI has also grappled with what else the society
should do, especially whether it ought to take a stand on policy issues. ASCI history
has reflected changing social, political, and economic contexts, including several
wars, concerns about the ethics of biomedical research, massive increases in federal
research funding, and an increasingly large and specialized medical environment.
We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal.
We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies.
We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors.
Although many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals.
In 1924 the London Committee of the Medical Women’s Federation was instrumental in establishing a clinic for the purpose of investigating the radium treatment of cervical cancer. The scheme was later to evolve into a hospital, the Marie Curie, where adherence to the methods developed in Stockholm served to establish radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery in cancer of the cervix. This article examines the women’s contribution in the light of feminist and professional struggles over the relative merits of surgery and radiotherapy. It argues that radiotherapy was an issue of special interest to women surgeons, not only because of the long history of feminist opposition to gynecological surgery, but also because it could widen women’s access to the medical profession in the face of male exclusion from training posts and honorary appointments at voluntary hospitals.
radiotherapy; radical abdominal hysterectomy; women surgeons; cervical cancer; Marie Curie Hospital
In this paper author discussed about preparing and submitting manuscripts - scientific, research, professional papers, reviews and case reports. Author described it from the Editor’s perspective, and specially talked about ethical aspects of authorship, conflict of interest, copyright, plagiarism and duplicate publication from the point of view of his experiences as Editor-in-Chief of several biomedical journals and Chief of Task Force of European Federation of Medical Informatics journals and member of Task Force of European Cardiology Society journals. The scientific process relies on trust and credibility. The scientific community demands high ethical standards to conduct biomedical research and to publish scientific contents. During the last decade, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI ), (also called competing loyalties, competing interests or dual commitments), has been considered as a key element to guarantee the credibility of the scientific process. Biases in design, analysis and interpretation of studies may arise when authors or sponsors have vested interests. Therefore, COI should be made clear to the readers to facilitate their own judgment and interpretation of their relevance and potential implications.
Results and Discussion:
Authors are responsible to fully disclose potential COI . In October 2009 the ICMJE proposed an electronic “uniform” format for COI disclosure. Four main areas were addressed: authors´ associations with entities that supported the submitted manuscript (indefinite time frame), associations with commercial entities with potential interest in the general area of the manuscript (time frame 36 months), financial association of their spouse and children and, finally, non-financial associations potentially relevant to the submitted manuscript. Consumers of medical scholarship expect a reliable system of disclosure in which journals and authors make disclosures appropriately and consistently. There is a stigma surrounding the reporting of COI that should be progressively overcome. Further actions are required to increase awareness of the importance of COI disclosure and to promote policies aimed to enhance transparency in biomedical research. In this article author discuss about important ethical dilemmas in preparing, writing and publishing of scientific manuscripts in biomedical journals.
medical science; biomedical journals; ethics; authorship; acknowledgement; conflict of interest; copyright; plagiarism; duplicate publication.
Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data. Creative Commons CC0 is an appropriate and increasingly accepted method for dedicating data to the public domain, to enable data reuse with the minimum of restrictions. BioMed Central is committed to working towards implementation of open data-compliant licensing in its publications. Here we detail a protocol for implementing a combined Creative Commons Attribution license (for copyrightable material) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver (for data) agreement for content published in peer-reviewed open access journals. We explain the differences between legal requirements for attribution in copyright, and cultural requirements in scholarship for giving individuals credit for their work through citation. We argue that publishing data in scientific journals under CC0 will have numerous benefits for individuals and society, and yet will have minimal implications for authors and minimal impact on current publishing and research workflows. We provide practical examples and definitions of data types, such as XML and tabular data, and specific secondary use cases for published data, including text mining, reproducible research, and open bibliography. We believe this proposed change to the current copyright and licensing structure in science publishing will help clarify what users – people and machines – of the published literature can do, legally, with journal articles and make research using the published literature more efficient. We further believe this model could be adopted across multiple publishers, and invite comment on this article from all stakeholders in scientific research.
The Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration was created to provide, for the first time, a unified forum to consider all factors that affect scientific practice and scientific discovery – with an emphasis on the changing face of contemporary biomedical science. In this endeavor we are bringing together three different groups of scholars: a) laboratory investigators, who make the discoveries that are the currency of the scientific enterprise; b) computer science and informatics investigators, who devise tools for data analysis, mining, visualization and integration; and c) social scientists, including sociologists, historians, and philosophers, who study scientific practice, collaboration, and information needs. We will publish original research articles, case studies, focus pieces, reviews, and software articles. All articles in the Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration will be peer reviewed, published immediately upon acceptance, freely available online via open access, and archived in PubMed Central and other international full-text repositories.
Fielding H. Garrison's paper "The medical periodical and the scientific society" cited the Buffalo Medical Journal in the company of eminent periodicals published in Berlin, Boston, and Edinburgh. This article provides an overview of the Journal and places it in context of 19th-century medical journalism. The Journal is assessed in terms of original scientific contributions and as a source of social and local history.
Despite various weaknesses, the impact factor (IF) is still used as an important indictor for scientific quality in specific subject categories. In the current study, the IFs of rheumatology journals over the past 10 years were serially analyzed and compared with that from other fields. For the past 10 years (1999–2008), the IFs published by the Institute for Scientific Information in the Science Citation Index—Journal Citation Report were analyzed. For the majority of rheumatology journals, the IF shows a gradually increasing trend. The mean and median level of increase of IF from 1999 to 2008 is 233.9 and 66.5%, respectively. The increase in IF from 1999 or the first year with IF documentation to that in 2008 was higher for European journals than for the USA journals. The aggregate IF and the median IF of rheumatology journals remained within the top 30% and top 15% in clinical medical and all the scientific categories, respectively. Over the past 10 years, rheumatology journals showed a general increase in IF and rheumatology remained a leading discipline. For journals in the English language, those from Europe had an even higher increase than those from USA.
Impact factor; Rheumatology; Journals; Clinical medicine
Some aspects of the performance of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) are described on the occasion of the journal's 25th anniversary. Comparative circulation data are presented. JABA's influence on the scientific community is measured by examining the citation history of articles that it has published, with attention to both frequency and source of the citations. The influence that other journals have on JABA's authors is assessed through an analysis of citations made by those authors in this journal's reference lists. The citation history indicates clearly that JABA has made substantial contributions toward producing methods useful in coping with a wide variety of problem behaviors, from profound developmental disabilities (such as autism) to the simpler behavioral problems that interfere with normal functioning in home and at school. Recently, the journal has devoted many issues and parts of issues to special topics, in a concerted effort to reflect the increasing breadth of applied behavioranalysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; publication history; applied behavior analysis
Purpose: The purpose is to review the issue of retraction in the scientific literature and to examine the policies on retraction of major biomedical journals.
Method: The historical background of this issue was investigated through a literature search. The Instructions to Authors of 122 major biomedical journals were reviewed for evidence of a policy on the retraction of articles. Editors of those journals with no mention of retraction in their Instructions to Authors were contacted by email and/or postal mail.
Results: Sixty-two percent of the journals investigated did not post or report having a policy on issuing retractions. Only twenty-one (18%) did. The remainder did not post any policy and did not respond to inquiries.
Discussion: Including policies in Instructions to Authors relating to the principled conduct of research and publication will improve the ethical environment in which the scientific community works.
An analysis of the articles published in 1992 in the Journal of the National Medical Association (JNMA) was performed to assess the content, statistical analysis, and the profile of its contributors. Seventy-six articles were reviewed. The majority of the articles focused on biomedical aspects of health; however, a significant proportion of the remaining articles contained information on the psychosocial aspects of health as it relates to people of African descent in the United States, Africa, and the Caribbean. Most of the literature was derived from physicians in university settings, with the contributions from traditionally black medical schools constituting nearly 30% of the articles. Analysis of data from contingency tables was the most common research method used. This study suggests that the JNMA is contributing to the mission of the National Medical Association. Reasons why authors who perform research with more rigorous scientific method do not publish in JNMA should be explored.
To assist educators and researchers in improving the quality of medical research, we surveyed the editors and statistical reviewers of high-impact medical journals to ascertain the most frequent and critical statistical errors in submitted manuscripts.
The Editors-in-Chief and statistical reviewers of the 38 medical journals with the highest impact factor in the 2007 Science Journal Citation Report and the 2007 Social Science Journal Citation Report were invited to complete an online survey about the statistical and design problems they most frequently found in manuscripts. Content analysis of the responses identified major issues. Editors and statistical reviewers (n = 25) from 20 journals responded. Respondents described problems that we classified into two, broad themes: A. statistical and sampling issues and B. inadequate reporting clarity or completeness. Problems included in the first theme were (1) inappropriate or incomplete analysis, including violations of model assumptions and analysis errors, (2) uninformed use of propensity scores, (3) failing to account for clustering in data analysis, (4) improperly addressing missing data, and (5) power/sample size concerns. Issues subsumed under the second theme were (1) Inadequate description of the methods and analysis and (2) Misstatement of results, including undue emphasis on p-values and incorrect inferences and interpretations.
The scientific quality of submitted manuscripts would increase if researchers addressed these common design, analytical, and reporting issues. Improving the application and presentation of quantitative methods in scholarly manuscripts is essential to advancing medical research.
The emergence of the Internet has triggered tremendous changes in the publication of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Today, journals are usually available in parallel electronic versions, but the way the peer-review process works, the look of articles and journals, and the rigid and slow publication schedules have remained largely unchanged, at least for the vast majority of subscription-based journals. Those publishing firms and scholarly publishers who have chosen the more radical option of open access (OA), in which the content of journals is freely accessible to anybody with Internet connectivity, have had a much bigger degree of freedom to experiment with innovations.
The objective was to study how open access journals have experimented with innovations concerning ways of organizing the peer review, the format of journals and articles, new interactive and media formats, and novel publishing revenue models.
The features of 24 open access journals were studied. The journals were chosen in a nonrandom manner from the approximately 7000 existing OA journals based on available information about interesting journals and include both representative cases and highly innovative outlier cases.
Most early OA journals in the 1990s were founded by individual scholars and used a business model based on voluntary work close in spirit to open-source development of software. In the next wave, many long-established journals, in particular society journals and journals from regions such as Latin America, made their articles OA when they started publishing parallel electronic versions. From about 2002 on, newly founded professional OA publishing firms using article-processing charges to fund their operations have emerged. Over the years, there have been several experiments with new forms of peer review, media enhancements, and the inclusion of structured data sets with articles. In recent years, the growth of OA publishing has also been facilitated by the availability of open-source software for journal publishing.
The case studies illustrate how a new technology and a business model enabled by new technology can be harnessed to find new innovative ways for the organization and content of scholarly publishing. Several recent launches of OA journals by major subscription publishers demonstrate that OA is rapidly gaining acceptance as a sustainable alternative to subscription-based scholarly publishing.
Scholarly publishing; open access; Internet; peer review
As the scientific literature grows, leading to an increasing volume of published experimental data, so does the need to access and analyze this data using computational tools. The most commonly used method to convert published experimental data on gene function into controlled vocabulary annotations relies on a professional curator, employed by a model organism database or a more general resource such as UniProt, to read published articles and compose annotation statements based on the articles' contents. A more cost-effective and scalable approach capable of capturing gene function data across the whole range of biological research organisms in computable form is urgently needed. We have analyzed a set of ontology annotations generated through collaborations between the Arabidopsis Information Resource and several plant science journals. Analysis of the submissions entered using the online submission tool shows that most community annotations were well supported and the ontology terms chosen were at an appropriate level of specificity. Of the 503 individual annotations that were submitted, 97% were approved and community submissions captured 72% of all possible annotations. This new method for capturing experimental results in a computable form provides a cost-effective way to greatly increase the available body of annotations without sacrificing annotation quality.
Local and regional scientific journals are important factors in bridging gaps in health knowledge translation in low-and middle-income countries. We assessed indexing, citations and publishing standards of journals from the Eastern Mediterranean region.
For journals from 22 countries in the collection of the Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), we analyzed indexing in bibliographical databases and citations during 2006–2009 to published items in 2006 in Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS. Adherence to editorial and publishing standards was assessed using a special checklist.
Out of 419 journals in IMEMR, 19 were indexed in MEDLINE, 23 in WoS and 46 in SCOPUS. Their impact factors ranged from 0.016 to 1.417. For a subset of 175 journals with available tables of contents from 2006, articles published in 2006 from 93 journals received 2068 citations in SCOPUS (23.5% self-citations) and articles in 86 journals received 1579 citations in WoS (24.3% self-citations) during 2006–2009. Citations to articles came mostly from outside of the Eastern Mediterranean region (76.8% in WoS and 75.4% in SCOPUS). Articles receiving highest number of citations presented topics specific for the region. Many journals did not follow editorial and publishing standards, such addressing requirements about the patient’s privacy rights (68.0% out of 244 analyzed), policy on managing conflicts of interest (66.4%), and ethical conduct in clinical and animal research (66.4%).
Journals from the Eastern Mediterranean are visible in and have impact on global scientific community. Coordinated effort of all stakeholders in journal publishing, including researchers, journal editors and owners, policy makers and citation databases, is needed to further promote local journals as windows to the research in the developing world and the doors for valuable regional research to the global scientific community.
Research in the field of cardiopulmonary disease in Brazil has been very active in recent decades. The combination of PUBMED, SCieLO, open access and online searching has provided a significant increase in the visibility of Brazilian journals. This newly acquired international visibility has in turn resulted in the appearance of more original research reports in the Brazilian scientific press. This review is intended to highlight part of this work for the benefit of the readers of “Clinics.” We searched through PUBMED for noteworthy articles published in Brazilian medical journals included in the Journal of Citation Reports of the Institute of Scientific Information to better expose them to our readership. The following journals were examined: “Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia,” “Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia e Metabologia,” “Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Reviews,” “Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia,” “Jornal de Pediatria,” “Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular,” “Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira,” Revista da Escola de Enfermagem U.S.P.” and “São Paulo Medical Journal.” These journals publish original investigations in the field of cardiopulmonary disease. The search produced 71 references, which are briefly examined.
Cardiology; Pneumology; Clinical research; Surgery; Epidemiology