ABSTRACT
Media convergence is the combination and convergence of every element of media in forms of breakdown of traditional classification, formats and distribution etc. It means the blending of its contents, consumers and operations in full and a new media was developed named as new media. The paper tries to explore the media convergence by starting from the paper-printed media, especially from the scientific journals. It is obvious that the basement is the electronization of media, comprehensive use of multi-technology is the fundamental tools, and it made the results of the inevitability of deep changes in term of thoughts, mindset and managerial principles as well. At the same time, the adverse effect of media convergence consequently coming from the freedom and openness of media convergence will be considered and avoided, so the surveillance of administrative functions and technicals should be adopted or developed accordingly.
ABSTRACT
objective:To analyze the contributed papers and publications in the first half year of 2020 from Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine， especially the COVID-19 papers， to provide basis for the academic journals to win out during the public hot points. Methods:All the papers contributed in the first half year of 2020 from Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine， were collected to analyze the sources parameters， editing parameters. All published papers were collected to analyze the sources parameters， editing parameters and their usages （downloads and citations）. Results:There were 450 papers contributed in the first half year of 2020， 129 papers were accepted accounting for 28.67%. Among them， 116 papers were COVID-19 papers accounting for 25.78%， and 32 papers were accepted accounting for 24.81%. the March was the highest month of contribution， also for COVID-19 papers. Many academic domains such as infectious disease， women and children health， clinic science， chronic disease， social medicine， public hygiene and others were predominated among those papers. COVID-19 papers dominated in domains of infectious disease and social medicine. According to the non-COVID-19 papers， the COVID-19 papers had higher numbers of peer reviewers， lower days for back improvement， lower days for refusals or acceptance， also had lower copy percentages by plagiarism check （all P<0.05）. there were 106 papers published in the first half year of 2020. Published COVID-19 papers had higher number of authors， higher numbers of references in term of governments reports， foreign references and less than 5 years references （all P<0.05）. Those published COVID-19 papers had better usages than those no-COVID-19 papers， adjusted downloads were 2 077.37/year vs 111.53/year， adjusted citations were 12.99/year vs 0.49/year. It was obvious that the published COVID-19 papers had very excellent social influences and academic influences （P<0.001）. Conclusion:Publication in the first half year of 2020 from Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine is high-qualified and is good for the journal’s improvement in social influences and academic influences. It is important for academic journals to pay more attention to the hot points of public health accordingly.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews or Meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine published in China, and to validate the applicability of OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) and AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) in traditional Chinese medicine (Chinese Medical).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Comprehensive literature retrieve was performed in CBM, CNKI, VIP as well as hand searching in Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. The retrieve was started from January 1, 1999 and terminated by December 2008. The methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine correlated systematic reviews was evaluated using OQAQ and AMSTAR simultaneously.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>A total of 115 systematic reviews involved 17 types of diseases, of which, the cardio-/cerebrovascular diseases was dominant (36 papers, 31.30%). The mean OQAQ score was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.22, 2.76). No significant correlation was found in OQAQ score with publication year (P = 0.35) and different disease types (P = 0.28). High consistency was observed in evaluations of systematic reviews by using OQAQ and AMSTAR (both Kappa values > 0.75). Compared with the OQAQ, AMSTAR incorporated 3 additional items: the topics, publication bias, and conflict of interest, etc. Although 98.26% of systematic reviews proposed protocols in prior, 53.04% failed to analyze the publication bias. Besides, 57.39% neglected to address the potential conflict of interest.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Poor methodological quality in systematic reviews of Chinese Medical published in China needs to be improved and emphasized. It is necessary to integrate the special characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine itself when choosing topics of systematic reviews. It is essential to establish quality assessment tools targeting systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine.</p>