Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Mycopathologia ; 186(2): 155-162, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1126577


The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the publishing landscape. The 'pre-peer-review' publication model is likely to become common as a lag in publishing is not acceptable in a pandemic or other time! Mycopathologia is well placed to adopt such changes with its improved editorial processes, article formats, author engagements, and published articles' access and citation. Mycopathologia had an improved journal impact factor and article downloads in 2018-2019. A limited sampling suggested a slight decrease in the total submissions in 2019 (352 articles) compared to 2018 (371 articles). However, the acceptance rate improved to 30% in 2019 from 19% in 2018. Nearly half of all submissions in 2019 were rejected before peer-review or transferred to other Springer Nature journals. The published articles were contributed from 34 different countries, with authors from China, the USA, and Brazil among the top three contributors. An enhanced editorial oversight allowed peer-reviewers to focus on fewer articles that were well-matched to their expertise, which led to lower rejection rates post-peer-review. The introduction of MycopathologiaGENOME and MycopathologiaIMAGE article types received a good reception with notable downloads and citations.

COVID-19 , Mycology , Pathology , Peer Review, Research/standards , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Research Report/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
J Med Internet Res ; 23(3): e22219, 2021 03 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1088863


Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Data Collection/methods , Electronic Health Records , Data Collection/standards , Humans , Peer Review, Research/standards , Publishing/standards , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
Transpl Int ; 34(2): 220-223, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066770


COVID-19 challenges to keep a valuable educational offer with lockdown measures and social distancing are reviewed. Scientific Societies had to think of new alternatives to maintain meetings with conversion to a virtual format and development of online resources, rapidly available and broadly accessible. Other in person activities as face-to-face clinics have been substituted by telemedicine; the same happened with surgical training in theatre, given the suspension of most of the operations. Finally, the need to share and communicate in a continuous evolving scenario, has impacted negatively the integrity of peer review process, not following the normal procedures to ensure scientific integrity and reproducibility in the earliest phases of the pandemic.

Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/prevention & control , Education, Distance/organization & administration , Specialties, Surgical/education , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Biomedical Research/standards , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Global Health , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research/standards , Peer Review, Research/trends , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Periodicals as Topic/trends , Physical Distancing
J Bone Joint Surg Am ; 102(9): 733, 2020 05 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-153965