In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model.
The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data.
Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period.
Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.
impact; open access; peer review; scientific publishing
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
The Internet has recently made possible the free global availability of scientific journal articles. Open Access (OA) can occur either via OA scientific journals, or via authors posting manuscripts of articles published in subscription journals in open web repositories. So far there have been few systematic studies showing how big the extent of OA is, in particular studies covering all fields of science.
The proportion of peer reviewed scholarly journal articles, which are available openly in full text on the web, was studied using a random sample of 1837 titles and a web search engine. Of articles published in 2008, 8,5% were freely available at the publishers' sites. For an additional 11,9% free manuscript versions could be found using search engines, making the overall OA percentage 20,4%. Chemistry (13%) had the lowest overall share of OA, Earth Sciences (33%) the highest. In medicine, biochemistry and chemistry publishing in OA journals was more common. In all other fields author-posted manuscript copies dominated the picture.
The results show that OA already has a significant positive impact on the availability of the scientific journal literature and that there are big differences between scientific disciplines in the uptake. Due to the lack of awareness of OA-publishing among scientists in most fields outside physics, the results should be of general interest to all scholars. The results should also interest academic publishers, who need to take into account OA in their business strategies and copyright policies, as well as research funders, who like the NIH are starting to require OA availability of results from research projects they fund. The method and search tools developed also offer a good basis for more in-depth studies as well as longitudinal studies.
Open Access (OA) is a model for publishing scholarly peer reviewed journals, made possible by the Internet. The full text of OA journals and articles can be freely read, as the publishing is funded through means other than subscriptions. Empirical research concerning the quantitative development of OA publishing has so far consisted of scattered individual studies providing brief snapshots, using varying methods and data sources. This study adopts a systematic method for studying the development of OA journals from their beginnings in the early 1990s until 2009. Because no comprehensive index of OA articles exists, systematic manual data collection from journal web sites was conducted based on journal-level data extracted from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Due to the high number of journals registered in the DOAJ, almost 5000 at the time of the study, stratified random sampling was used. A separate sample of verified early pioneer OA journals was also studied. The results show a very rapid growth of OA publishing during the period 1993–2009. During the last year an estimated 191 000 articles were published in 4769 journals. Since the year 2000, the average annual growth rate has been 18% for the number of journals and 30% for the number of articles. This can be contrasted to the reported 3,5% yearly volume increase in journal publishing in general. In 2009 the share of articles in OA journals, of all peer reviewed journal articles, reached 7,7%. Overall, the results document a rapid growth in OA journal publishing over the last fifteen years. Based on the sampling results and qualitative data a division into three distinct periods is suggested: The Pioneering years (1993–1999), the Innovation years (2000–2004), and the Consolidation years (2005–2009).
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.
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access, online journal that aims to expeditiously publish clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues in different cultural communities. It provides a platform for exchanges of new clinical and scientific information in the most precise and expeditious way to achieve dissemination of information and cross-fertilization of ideas. The open access nature of this journal allows articles to be universally and freely accessible via the Internet. This ensures a rapid and efficient communication of research findings. The journal welcomes all types of articles related to musculoskeletal issues. Its timely publication and high visibility are the two most important features that make this journal different from other traditional journals in the orthopaedic field.
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
Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.
In the last three years, more than 70,000 scientific articles have been published in peer reviewed journals on the application of histochemistry in the biomedical field: most of them did not appear in strictly histochemical journals, but in others dealing with cell and molecular biology, medicine or biotechnology. This proves that histochemistry is still an active and innovative discipline with relevance in basic and applied biological research, but also demonstrates that especially the small histochemical journals should likely reconsider their scopes and strategies to preserve their authorship. A review of the last three years volumes of the European Journal of Histochemistry, taken as an example of a long-time established small journal, confirmed that the published articles were widely heterogeneous in their topics and experimental models, as in this journal's tradition. This strongly suggests that a journal of histochemistry should keep its role as a forum open to an audience as broad as possible, publishing papers on cell and tissue biology in a wide variety of models. This will improve knowledge of the basic mechanisms of development and differentiation, while helping to increase the number of potential authors since scientists who generally do not use histochemistry in their research will find hints for the applications of histochemical techniques to novel still unexplored subjects.
Basic and applied histochemistry
It is well known that papers written in languages other than English have a great risk of being ignored simply because these languages are not accessible to the international scientific community. The objective of this paper is to facilitate the access to the public health and epidemiology literature available in Portuguese speaking countries. It was found that it is particularly concentrated in Brazil, with some few examples in Portugal and none in other Portuguese speaking countries. This literature is predominantly written in Portuguese, but also in other languages such as English or Spanish. The paper describes the several journals, as well as the bibliographic databases that index these journals and how to access them. Most journals provide open-access with direct links in the indexing databases. The importance of this scientific production for the development of epidemiology as a scientific discipline and as a basic discipline for public health practice is discussed. To marginalize these publications has implications for a more balanced knowledge and understanding of the health problems and their determinants at a world-wide level.
Journal of Neuroinflammation is an Open Access, online journal published by BioMed Central. Open Access publishing provides instant and universal availability of published work to any potential reader, worldwide, completely free of subscriptions, passwords, and charges. Further, authors retain copyright for their work, facilitating its dissemination. Open Access publishing is made possible by article-processing charges assessed "on the front end" to authors, their institutions, or their funding agencies. Beginning November 1, 2004, the Journal of Neuroinflammation will introduce article-processing charges of around US$525 for accepted articles. This charge will be waived for authors from institutions that are BioMed Central members, and in additional cases for reasons of genuine financial hardship. These article-processing charges pay for an electronic submission process that facilitates efficient and thorough peer review, for publication costs involved in providing the article freely and universally accessible in various formats online, and for the processes required for the article's inclusion in PubMed and its archiving in PubMed Central, e-Depot, Potsdam and INIST. There is no remuneration of any kind provided to the Editors-in-Chief, to any members of the Editorial Board, or to peer reviewers; all of whose work is entirely voluntary. Our article-processing charge is less than charges frequently levied by traditional journals: the Journal of Neuroinflammation does not levy any additional page or color charges on top of this fee, and there are no reprint costs as publication-quality pdf files are provided, free, for distribution in lieu of reprints. Our article-processing charge will enable full, immediate, and continued Open Access for all work published in Journal of Neuroinflammation. The benefits from such Open Access will accrue to readers, through unrestricted access; to authors, through the widest possible dissemination of their work; and to science and society in general, through facilitation of information availability and scientific advancement.
Faithful and complete reporting of trial results is essential to the validity of the scientific literature. An earlier systematic study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that industry-funded RCTs appeared to be reported with greater quality than were non-industry funded RCTs. The aim of this study was to examine the association between systematic differences in reporting quality and funding status (i.e. industry-funding vs. non-industry funding) amongst recent obesity and nutrition RCTs published in top tier medical journals
Thirty eight obesity or nutrition intervention RCT articles were selected from high-profile, general medical journals (The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and the British Medical Journal) published between 2000 and 2007. Paired papers were selected from the same journal published in the same year, one with and the other without industry funding. The following identifying information was redacted: journal, title, authors, funding source, and institution(s). Then three raters independently and blindly rated each paper according to the Chalmers Method and total reporting quality scores were calculated.
The inter-rater reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) was 0.82 [95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) = 0.80 – 0.84]. The total mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) Chalmer’s Index quality score (out of a possible 100) for industry-funded studies were M = 84.5, SD = 7.04 and for non-industry funded studies they were, M = 79.4, SD = 13.00. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test indicates no significant rank difference in the distributions of total quality scores between funding sources, Z = −0.966, p = 0 .334 (two-tailed).
Recently published RCTs on nutrition and obesity that appear in top-tier journals seem to be equivalent in quality of reporting, regardless of funding source. This may be a result of recent reporting quality statements and efforts of journal editors to raise all papers to a common standard.
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
Hearing loss is a leading cause of disability in China. However, the research status in the field of hearing among Chinese individuals in the three major regions of China: Mainland (ML), Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW), are unknown. The output of hearing articles published in international otorhinolaryngology journals from these three regions were compared in this study. Articles published in 31 international otorhinolaryngology journals related to hearing originating from the ML, TW and HK from 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from the PubMed database search. The number of total articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, case reports, and articles published in the top 5 international otorhinolaryngology journals were assessed in terms of quantity and quality comparisons. The total number of articles from the three regions increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. There were 379 articles from ML (143), TW (180) and HK (56) in the past 10 years. The number of articles published per year from the ML has exceeded those from TW in 2009 and HK in 2003. TW had the most articles (46) published in the top 5 international otorhinolaryngology journals among the three regions. The total number of articles from the three major regions of China increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. The numbers of articles published per year from the ML have exceeded those from TW and HK. However, the quality of articles from TW is better than that from ML.
Hearing; Otorhinolaryngology; Research; Impact factor (IF); Science citation index expanded (SCIE)
The details about the research productivity in the neurology specialty from India is lacking. We analyzed the publishing trends and the research productivity of neurology-related articles in the Journal of the Association of Physicians of India (JAPI).
Materials and Methods:
We carried the bibliometric analysis of articles related to neurology specialty from JAPI published between 2000 and 2011. Data were derived from the journal's website and the articles were analyzed for type (original article, case reports, etc.), disease (infection, vascular, etc.), place, and timelines for publication.
Out of total 2977 articles published, 256 articles belong to neurology. Neurology contributed to 7--20% of the published articles per year in JAPI. Case reports (52%) constitute the majority type of articles followed by Original Articles (20%), Correspondence and Images (15% each). Infections (27%), structural disorders (19%), cerebrovascular and peripheral nervous system disorders (16% each) contribute the majority of research articles in Neurology. Mumbai (15%), Delhi (13%), and Chennai (9%) are the top three contributors followed by Lucknow and Varanasi. All types of articles took about 9--10 months for acceptance and another 4--5 months for publication. Letters to the Editor were published faster when compared to other articles (P=0.0035).
Neurology specialty contributes an average 14% of articles per annum in JAPI. Infections, vascular, structural, and peripheral nervous system disorders together account for 80% of published literature with a small representation from other diseases. Mumbai and Delhi are the leading contributors toward research productivity in neurology.
Biomedical journals; India; neurology; publication trends; research productivity
This editorial announces Algorithms for Molecular Biology, a new online open access journal published by BioMed Central. By launching the first open access journal on algorithmic bioinformatics, we provide a forum for fast publication of high-quality research articles in this rapidly evolving field. Our journal will publish thoroughly peer-reviewed papers without length limitations covering all aspects of algorithmic data analysis in computatioal biology. Publications in Algorithms for Molecular Biology are easy to find, highly visible and tracked by organisations such as PubMed. An established online submission system makes a fast reviewing procedure possible and enables us to publish accepted papers without delay. All articles published in our journal are permanently archived by PubMed Central and other scientific archives. We are looking forward to receiving your contributions.
Open-access journals, which provide access to their scholarly articles freely and without limitations, are at a systematic disadvantage relative to traditional closed-access journal publishing and its subscription-based business model. A simple, cost-effective remedy to this inequity could put open-access publishing on a path to become a sustainable, efficient system.
The quantity and quality of publications by a country indicates its contribution towards scientific development.
To examine the volume and impact of the Saudi anesthesia publications in leading anesthesia journals.
Settings and Design:
Fifteen leading anesthesia journals were identified. Saudi publications in these journals from 1991 to 2011 were searched in the databases of Pubmed and Web of Knowledge.
For each article, the journal and time of publication, the type of the article and the affiliation of the first author were analysed. The visibility of the publications was related to the number of citations and was analysed for the years 2000 to 2008. Data were compared with selected Arab countries.
Two visibility indices were used. The first relates the average citations per Saudi articles in the years following publication to the average global citations. The second relates the average citations per Saudi article in the two years following publication to the impact factor of the journal of publication. The h-index was used as a measure of both volume and visibility.
Anesthesiologists from Saudi affiliations published 173 documents in leading 15 anesthesia journals betweent the years 1991-2011, with a marked increase in the last 6 years. Anesthesia and Analgesia journal published 24% of Saudi articles. Saudi universities contributed to 55% of Saudi publications. The visibility of the Saudi articles was 0.7 of the international figures.
Saudi anesthesia publications are increasing in recent years. Although the visibility of Saudi publications is below international figures, it compares favourably to Arab countries.
Bibliometric; h-index; impact factor; scientometrics; visibility indices
There were 83 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2011, which is an 11% increase in the number of articles since 2010. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors had been delighted with the 2010 JCMR Impact Factor of 4.33, although this fell modestly to 3.72 for 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, we remain very pleased with the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors feel it is useful to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, which we feel would be useful, so that areas of interest from the previous year can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles . The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication.
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.
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.
Different approaches can be chosen to quantify the impact and merits of scientific oncology publications. These include source of publication (including journal reputation and impact factor), whether or not articles are cited by others, and access/download figures. When relying on citation counts, one needs to obtain access to citation databases and has to consider that results differ from one database to another. Accumulation of citations takes time and their dynamics might differ from journal to journal and topic to topic. Therefore, we wanted to evaluate the correlation between citation and download figures, hypothesising that articles with fewer downloads also accumulate fewer citations. Typically, publishers provide download figures together with the article. We extracted and analysed the 50 most viewed articles from 5 different open access oncology journals. For each of the 5 journals and also all journals combined, correlation between number of accesses and citations was limited (r = 0.01-0.30). Considerable variations were also observed when analyses were restricted to specific article types such as reviews only (r = 0.21) or case reports only (r = 0.53). Even if year of publication was taken into account, high correlation coefficients were the exception from the rule. In conclusion, downloads are not a universal surrogate for citation figures.
Oncology research; Oncology bibliometrics; Publication pattern; Open access
This article describes the methodology of preparation, writing and publishing scientific papers in biomedical journals. given is a concise overview of the concept and structure of the System of biomedical scientific and technical information and the way of biomedical literature retreival from worldwide biomedical databases. Described are the scientific and professional medical journals that are currently published in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, given is the comparative review on the number and structure of papers published in indexed journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are listed in the Medline database.
Analyzed are three B&H journals indexed in MEDLINE database: Medical Archives (Medicinski Arhiv), Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences and Medical Gazette (Medicinki Glasnik) in 2010. The largest number of original papers was published in the Medical Archives. There is a statistically significant difference in the number of papers published by local authors in relation to international journals in favor of the Medical Archives. True, the Journal Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences does not categorize the articles and we could not make comparisons. Journal Medical Archives and Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences by percentage published the largest number of articles by authors from Sarajevo and Tuzla, the two oldest and largest university medical centers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The author believes that it is necessary to make qualitative changes in the reception and reviewing of papers for publication in biomedical journals published in Bosnia and Herzegovina which should be the responsibility of the separate scientific authority/ committee composed of experts in the field of medicine at the state level.
System of biomedical scientific and research information; indexed medical journals in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Eye diseases with increasing mortality are common health problems that affect people of all ages and demographic backgrounds. In this study, we study the publication characteristics in international ophthalmic journals of the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, and China.
Articles published in 53 ophthalmic journals from 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from the PubMed database. We recorded the number of articles published each year, analyzed the publication type, and evaluated the accumulated and average impact factors (IFs), and the distribution of articles in ophthalmic journals in relation to IFs. The characteristics of publication outputs from China and other top-ranking countries were compared.
The total number of articles increased significantly during the past 12 years, with an increase of 51.0%. The growth in the annual number of articles from the US, the UK, Australia, and China showed a significantly positive trend. Publications from the US exceeded those from any other country and had the highest IFs, largest number of total citations of articles, and the most articles published in leading ophthalmic journals. During the past 12 years, China contributed 3.5% of the total publications, and the number of Chinese articles showed a more than 6-fold increase (from 99 to 605, R2 =0.947, P<0.001). The numbers of IFs and citations of articles originating in China were mostly lower than for other top-ranking counties.
Research on ophthalmic journals has maintained an upward growing trend from 2000 to 2011. Chinese ophthalmology research has developed rapidly, but the gap still exists between China and other top-ranking countries for the advanced level of research.
Bibliometrics; Ophthalmology; Publication; China; Top-ranking countries
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.