ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with dementia usually have multiple comorbidities. The presence of comorbidities may exacerbate the progression of dementia and decreases the patient's ability to participate in health maintenance activities. However, there is hardly any meta-analysis estimating the magnitude of comorbidities among patients with dementia in the Indian context. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and relevant studies conducted in India were included. The risk of bias was assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis model was used in which I2 statistics were calculated to measure heterogeneity among studies. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Altogether, we found the coexistence of comorbid conditions such as hypertension (51.10%), diabetes (27.58%), stroke (15.99%), and factors like tobacco use (26.81 %) and alcohol use (9.19%) among patients with dementia in this setting. The level of heterogeneity was high due to differences in the methodologies in the included studies. Conclusions: Our study found hypertension as the most common comorbid condition among patients with dementia in India. The observed lacuna of methodological limitations in the studies included in the current meta-analysis provides the urgent need for good quality research to successfully meet the challenges ahead while devising appropriate strategies to treat the comorbidities among patients with dementia.
ABSTRACT
Background: Little is known about the publication outcomes of submissions rejected by specialty psychiatry journals. We aimed to investigate the publication fate of original research manuscripts previously rejected by the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM). Methods: A random sampling of manuscripts was drawn from all submissions rejected between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Using the titles of these papers and the author names, a systematic search of electronic databases was carried out to examine if these manuscripts have been published elsewhere or not. We extracted data on a range of scientific and nonscientific parameters from the journal's manuscript management portal for every rejected manuscript. Multivariable analysis was used to detect factors associated with eventual publication. Results: Out of 302 manuscripts analyzed, 139 (46.0%) were published elsewhere; of these, only 18 articles (13.0%) were published in a journal with higher standing than IJPM. Manuscripts of foreign origin (odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-2.97) and rejection following peer review or editorial re-review (OR 2.41, 95% CI = 1.22-4.74) were significantly associated with publication. Conclusion: Nearly half of the papers rejected by IJPM were eventually published in other journals, though such papers are more often published in journals with lower standing. Manuscripts rejected following peer review were more likely to reach full publication status compared to those which were desk rejected.
ABSTRACT
Background: No analysis of redundant or duplicate publications, deemed unethical and unscientific, has been undertaken in psychiatric literature. Aim: To analyze the proportion and patterns of redundant publications associated with index articles published in two major Indian psychiatry journals. Methods: Index articles were original papers published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry and the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine between 2015 and 2017. Using a systematic search strategy that combined author names and article keywords, we combed the literature to identify and characterize redundant publications related to these index articles. Redundant publications were classified into one of the following categories using a priori definitions: dual, suspected dual, salami slicing, meat extender, and extended sample publication. Results: From 324 index articles screened, a total of 27 articles (8.4%) were identified to have 32 associated redundant publications of the following types: dual (n = 3), suspected dual (n = 2), salami slicing (n = 22), meat extender (n = 3), and extended sample publication (n = 2). A majority of the redundant articles (n = 23, 71.9%) failed to clearly cross-reference the prior publication(s). We also identified nine non-redundant but related publications with no proper cross-referencing in five of them. Conclusion: Redundant publications are a common practice in the psychiatry journals screened. Salami slicing is the most common form of redundancy, with no proper cross-referencing in most cases. Concerted efforts are needed to detect and deal with this concerning practice that undermines both science and ethics.
ABSTRACT
Background: A proportion of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals get rejected, for varied reasons. A systematic analysis of the reasons for rejection will be relevant to editors, reviewers, and prospective authors. We aimed to analyze the reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, the flagship journal of Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. Methods: We performed a content analysis of the rejection reports of all the articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018, and May 15, 2020. Rejection reports were extracted from the manuscript management website and divided into three types: desk rejections, post-peer-review rejections, and post-editorial-re-review rejections. They were analyzed separately for the rejection reasons, using a predefined coding frame. Results: A total of 898 rejection reports were available for content analysis. Rejection was a common fate for manuscripts across the types of submission; figures ranged from 26.7% for viewpoint articles to 72.1% for review articles. The median time to desk rejection was 3 days, while the median time to post-peer-review rejection and post-editorial-re-review rejection was 42 days and 96 days, respectively. The most common reasons for desk rejection were lack of novelty or being out of the journal's scope. Inappropriate study designs, poor methodological descriptions, poor quality of writing, and weak study rationale were the most common rejection reasons mentioned by both peer reviewers and editorial re-reviewers. Conclusions: Common reasons for rejection included poor methodology and poorly written manuscripts. Prospective authors should pay adequate attention to conceptualization, design, and presentation of their study, apart from selecting an appropriate journal, to avoid rejection and enhance their manuscript's chances of publication.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Though peer review is at the heart of scholarly publishing, peer review reports are not commonly investigated. We aimed to analyse the quality and structure of review reports submitted to the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM). METHODS: We systematically analysed the structure, tone, and quality of peer review reports of all original articles submitted to the journal between January 1, 2018 to May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was done using the 8-item Review Quality Instrument (RQI). RESULTS: A total of 527 review reports from 291 original articles were analysed. More than two-thirds of review reports were provided as inline comments (n = 368, 69.8 %). Most of the review reports were not well-structured; only a few provided a summary (n = 64, 13.2 %) or divided the comments into major and minor ones (n = 12, 2.5 %). Nearly a quarter had negative wordings (n = 117, 24.1 %) and a minority had a frankly unprofessional tone (n = 43, 8.8 %). The global rating was "poor" (n = 266, 50.5 %) or "below average" (n = 203, 38.5 %) for most reports. CONCLUSION: Most of the peer reviews submitted to the IJPM were not structured and obtained low scores on the RQI domains. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the quality of peer reviews and to provide training for reviewers.
Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research , Psychiatry , Humans , PublishingABSTRACT
Continuing medical education (CME) is essential for medical practitioners to update their knowledge and skills periodically to provide clinical care in keeping with the evidence available. Traditional methods of CME such as workshops, conferences, and seminars are helpful to bridge the gaps in practice. With advancing technologies, online format is used to deliver CME with appropriate modifications. Although there are distinct advantages of online CME in regards to wider reach and flexibility, there are certain drawbacks beyond just technological limitations. Interactivity using ingenious ideas may be required to motivate and engage learners during online CME.
ABSTRACT
Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) surveys are popular in health care because they provide useful information and appear easy to design and execute. There are subtleties, however, in such surveys that early career researchers need to be aware of. This article does not provide a detailed review of the subject, nor does it address theory; rather, it provides practical guidance on matters such as identifying the need for the survey; defining the target population; preparing the questions that address knowledge, attitudes, and practice; preparing options for the answers to the items in the questionnaire; deciding how to score the instrument and analyze the results; and validating the instrument. Specific examples are presented to help readers understand and apply the guidance in various contexts.
