Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 38
Filter
1.
Int Braz J Urol ; 47(5): 918-920, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862402
2.
Science ; 376(6595): 782-783, 2022 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1854222

ABSTRACT

Researchers who pivoted from distant disciplines produced lower impact work, study finds.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Journal Impact Factor , Humans , Periodicals as Topic
3.
Int J Rheum Dis ; 25(5): 513-516, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831897
5.
Stroke ; 53(2): 304-306, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779503
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(5)2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736893

ABSTRACT

Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) are responsible for creating healthy and sustainable environments for students and teachers through diverse educational paradigms such as gamification. In this sense, the Healthy People 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals indicated the imperative to provide inclusive and equitable quality education to promote a healthy environment and life. The principal objective was to analyse the impact of gamification on health development in HEIs, highlighting their positive and negative effects. To achieve such an objective, a bibliometric analysis was carried out. The 257 documents showed no significant increasing trend in the last decade (p > 0.05) related to the pandemic. Most of the publications were conferences (45%), and the few published articles were the documents with more citations (p < 0.001). According to their index in Journal Citation Reports, there were significant differences between the citations of articles published in journals (p < 0.001). The analysis of journal co-citations showed that the leading journals (such as Computers in Human Behavior) had a significant part in the clusters formed (p < 0.001), conditioning also the keywords, especially the term "motivation". These findings were discussed, concluding that the experimental studies focused on the teachers' adverse effects are yet to come.


Subject(s)
Motivation , Bibliometrics , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Publications
7.
Bratisl Lek Listy ; 123(3): 160-171, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1708942

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the main features of the top 100 (T100) most cited articles in academia and 100 most discussed articles on social media about vitamin D from 1975 to 2021 and compare bibliometric and altmetric analysis. METHODS: 'Vitamin D' was searched from the Web of Science database and Altmetric.com website, and T100 citation and altmetric lists were created, respectively. Articles in both lists were analysed in terms of study type, topic, first author, publication year, citation number and altmetric attention score (AAS). Impact factor (IF) and quartile of journal, in which the articles were published was also examined. RESULTS: The article "Vitamin D Deficiency" by Holick MF, published in the New England Journal of Medicine was the most cited article (n=8492), original scientific paper was the most frequent study type in both lists. No correlation was found between AAS and citation number in both lists (r=0.176, p=0.081; r=0.157, p=0.119, respectively). The journals on the T100 citation list had a statistically significantly higher IF than the journals in the T100 altmetric list (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Altmetric analysis of vitamin D is currently insufficient to replace traditional bibliometric analysis but can provide valuable information about the society's interest. As social media gains more importance every day in our lives, high altmetric score could affect future interests and direct studies (Tab. 6, Fig. 3, Ref. 21).


Subject(s)
Social Media , Vitamin D , Bibliometrics , Humans , Journal Impact Factor
8.
Headache ; 62(1): 1, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1642658
11.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258935, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496518

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable. OBJECTIVE: To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020. KEY RESULTS: We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Journal Impact Factor , Plagiarism , Publishing , Scientific Misconduct
12.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257841, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435624

ABSTRACT

Selecting a target journal is a universal decision faced by authors of scientific papers. Components of the decision, including expected turnaround time, journal acceptance rate, and journal impact factor, vary in terms of accessibility. In this study, I collated recent turnaround times and impact factors for 82 journals that publish papers in the field of fisheries sciences. In addition, I gathered acceptance rates for the same journals when possible. Findings indicated clear among-journal differences in turnaround time, with median times-to-publication ranging from 79 to 323 days. There was no clear correlation between turnaround time and acceptance rate nor between turnaround time and impact factor; however, acceptance rate and impact factor were negatively correlated. I found no field-wide differences in turnaround time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some individual journals took significantly longer or significantly shorter to publish during the pandemic. Depending on their priorities, authors choosing a target journal should use the results of this study as guidance toward a more informed decision.


Subject(s)
Fisheries/organization & administration , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data
13.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257093, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435606

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs. RESULTS: 53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Publications/standards , Publishing/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Data Management/standards , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , PubMed/standards , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
14.
J Urol ; 206(2): 197-198, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348081
15.
Anatol J Cardiol ; 25(8): 527, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344493
16.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 15(4): 102140, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230441

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It has been just over a year since the Covid-19 pandemic started. The top 50 cited articles on this subject would help identify trends and focus on the research efforts. METHODS: We utilised e-utilities in PubMed to find publications on Covid-19 until the date of search on 7/2/21. The iCite website was used to find the top 50 citations of the output from the search strategy. We looked into their full text for the editorial dates, type of study, level of evidence, focus of the article and country of origin. We also counted the errata and comments on each of them. RESULTS: The total number of citations of all 50 articles was 123,960, the highest being 10, 754 for a single article. Huang C was the most cited first author. They were published from week 4-17, with February being the month with most citations. Lancet was the most cited journal, having published 9 of the 50 articles. Majority belonged to level 3 of the evidence ladder and were retrospective studies. Thirty percent of them had an errata published and an average of 7 comments per article. CONCLUSION: The top 50 most cited articles identify the most impactful studies on Covid-19, providing a resource to educators while identifying trends to guide research and publishing efforts. There has been an explosion of publications and an unprecedented rate and number of citations within the first year for any single condition in the literature.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Publications/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Journal Impact Factor
20.
Account Res ; 29(3): 133-164, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1160891

ABSTRACT

Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Peer Review , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL