Scholarly analytics for nurse practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Nurse practitioners who publish contribute to the profession's body of knowledge. Today's digitally inclined environment easily allows for the tracking of contributing to knowledge and impact. Four popular measures for tracking include Altmetric, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Authors should understand each tracking source's purpose, process, and value. The strengths and limitations of the tracking sources are reviewed. Awareness of the tracking sources and knowing how to influence the tools will bring additional attention to the authors.

Nursing's Primary Commitment Embedded in the Quintuple Aim.

Anecdotally, from personal experience as a growing editor and in talking with experienced editors, rejecting evidence-based project manuscripts that do not include patient outcomes is routine. Phrased differently, it is typic.

[Interpreting the evidence. Reducing subjectivity in appraising the evidence calls for a return to teaching evidence-based medicine.] / L'interpretazione delle evidenze. Per ridurre la soggettività nella lettura delle prove serve tornare a insegnare l'evidence-based medicine.

The interpretation of clinical research evidence is still characterized by wide subjectivity. This subjectivity is also visible when comparing guidelines and recommendations developed by institutions and learned societies. It is often due to bias and conflicts of interest experienced by the members of guideline panels: thus, the role of editors and publishers of journals and scientific media becomes increasingly important, and they should return to careful oversight of the content of what is published. To address the problem, however, it is necessary to return to teaching evidence-based medicine in order to restore its function as a "North star" in clinical practice and public health decision-making.

Publication of pediatric theses defended at the Tunis Faculty of Medicine: A 15-year study.

INTRODUCTION: The valorisation of thesis through its publication is necessary to enhance its visibility. Few data exist concerning the characteristics of theses defended at the Tunis faculty of medicine. AIM: Examine the publication rate of pediatric theses and identify factors associated with an increased publication rate. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive bibliometric study of pediatric theses defended at the Faculty of Medicine of Tunis over 15 years, from 2006 to 2020. Theses were retrieved from the catalog of the faculty library. Publications had been searched in databases "Pub Med ", and "Google Scholar" until December2021. RESULTS: The study involved 235 pediatric theses. Sixty-eight theses were published, representing 29% of the total. The main topics of published theses were neonatology (16%) and hematology (15%). The language of publication was French and English in 55% and 45% of cases, respectively. All publications in Q1 and Q2 journals were written in English. The only independent factor predicting publication of theses was the very honourable mention with congratulations of the jury and proposal for the thesis prize (p=0,007). CONCLUSION: Additional assessments will be necessary to identify the obstacles to the publication of theses.

Publish and perish: New issues in publication ethics.

The expression "Publish or perish," first appeared in 1942. It signified the rising importance of publication as a means to obtain research funds and establish a secure academic career. The expression is still highly relevant, but increasingly problematic. Perhaps it should be revised to read "Publish and Perish". We have reached a point where researchers, especially in non-English speaking countries, are no longer able to afford to publish their research. There seems little point in undertaking research if we can no longer disseminate or, indeed, apply the wisdom gained from it.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.