ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prolonged publishing time in scientific journals can be discouraging for researchers because earlier publication can mean a higher h-index and more academic opportunities. In this study, we evaluated the publication time for articles in plastic surgery journals compared with journals in surgery and medicine. We also assessed correlations between publication speed and journal impact factors (IFs). METHODS: The overall indexes of all plastic surgery journals were compared with journals in the discipline of surgery and medicine. In addition, we evaluated original articles published in all plastic surgical journals and the highest-ranking journals from various surgical subspecialties listed in the 2018 Journal Citation Report, assessing the time intervals from submission to publication, submission to acceptance, and acceptance to publication. Correlation between time interval and journal IF were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 18 plastic surgery journals were compared with 210 surgical journals. Our study found that the IFs of journals significantly affect submission-to-acceptance times of the articles (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon test). The median submission-to-publication time for all plastic surgery and all surgical journals was 29.7 weeks (IQR, 12.1 and 35.8) and 22.1 days (IQR,18.8 and 36.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant submission to publication time lag in plastic surgery journals when compared with other nonplastic-surgery journals. There was a positive correlation between submission-to publication time and IF for plastic surgery journals but a negative correlation for surgery journals (Spearman Correlation). In the last 14 years, plastic surgery journals have remained slow in publishing articles.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radiology trainees frequently use the Internet to research potential fellowship programs across all subspecialties. For a field like nuclear medicine, which has multiple training pathways, program websites can be an essential resource for potential applicants. This study aimed to analyze the online content of Canadian and American Nuclear Medicine fellowship websites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The content of all active Canadian and American Nuclear Medicine fellowship websites was evaluated using 26 criteria in the following subdivisions: application, recruitment, education, research, clinical work, and incentives. Fellowships without websites were excluded from the study. Scores were summed per program and compared by geographic region and ranking. RESULTS: A total of 42 active Canadian and American Nuclear Medicine fellowship programs were identified, of which 39 fellowships had dedicated fellowship websites available for the analysis. On average, fellowship websites contained 34.4% (9 ± 3.3) of the 26 criteria. Programs did not score differently on the criteria by geographical distribution (P = .08) nor by ranking (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Most Canadian and American Nuclear Medicine fellowship websites are lacking content relevant to prospective fellows. Addressing inadequacies in online content may support programs to inform and recruit residents into fellowship programs.
