Going Beyond "Not Enough Time": Barriers to Preparing Manuscripts for Academic Medical Journals

Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape

Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.

Writing Support Group for Medical School Faculty-A Simple Way to Do It

Problem: Writing for publication is a core activity for many medical school faculty, but faculty report numerous challenges to publication. To help address these challenges, some medical schools establish writing support programs, but those programs are often resource-intensive, involving didactic courses, accountability groups, formal mentorships, and even assistance from professional writers. Not all medical schools, however, provide resources for such programs, and many faculty members, especially clinicians, lack time needed to participate. Furthermore, success of these programs is typically judged by the total number of papers published. However, many clinicians would judge success as publication of the occasional papers they decide to write, not the total number of papers they or the group publish. With these issues in mind, we established a low-resource writing program focused on individual acceptance rates rather than total publications. Intervention: Our writing program is an informal group that meets monthly. Members bring their ideas for papers and drafts of papers, and other members provide critique and suggestions for improvement. Members then revise their papers to address that critique prior to journal submission. There are no formal or assigned mentors, courses, lectures, or writing assistants. Context: The program takes place in our family medicine department, in which faculty have various roles. Some group members are clinician-educators seeking to publish occasional clinical reviews or research articles; others are PhDs seeking to publish on aspects of their work. Impact: During the six years of the program, 86% of papers reviewed by the group were accepted for publication and 94% of those were accepted by the journal to which they were first submitted. Publication success rate of individual members averaged 79%. This exceeds the 30-40% acceptance rate for scholarly journals worldwide. Group members published an average of 5.2 papers per member, with some publishing as few as 2-3 papers and others as many as 10-11. Lessons Learned: An informal, low-resource writing program in medical school departments can help faculty reach their publication goals. We found that members were satisfied by having the group help them publish whatever number of papers they decided to write. The program's simple, informal approach fostered a culture of respectful and collegial interactions, in which members learned to depend on and accept critiques from colleagues. Finally, an unexpected benefit of our program resulted from membership of both clinicians and non-clinicians. This provided feedback from individuals with different perspectives, which enhanced development of manuscripts.

Unpublished completed obstetric randomized clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: how big is this issue?

BACKGROUND

A portion of obstetrical randomized clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the characteristics of completed published vs unpublished randomized clinical trials in obstetrics registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and to identify barriers to publication.

STUDY DESIGN

This cross-sectional study queried ClinicalTrials.gov for all completed obstetrical randomized clinical trials registered between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018. For each completed obstetrical randomized clinical trial, we abstracted the following registration fields from ClinicalTrials.gov: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, recruitment status, trial start and completion dates, study results, type of intervention, study phase, enrollment size, funder type, location, and facilities. Calculated variables included time to completion. In May 2021, we used PubMed and Google Scholar to identify the publication status of completed trials, and we compared the characteristics of published vs unpublished randomized clinical trials. The corresponding authors' e-mail addresses for the unpublished studies were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov and departmental websites. Between September 2021 and March 2022, the authors of these completed but unpublished obstetrical randomized clinical trials were contacted and invited to respond to a survey examining perceptions of barriers to publication, responses of which were collected and presented as counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Of the 647 obstetrical randomized clinical trials marked as completed on ClinicalTrials.gov, 378 (58%) were published, and 269 (42%) were unpublished. Unpublished trials were more likely to have an enrollment size of <50 participants (14.5% published vs 25.3% unpublished; P<.001) and less likely to be conducted at multiple sites (25.4% published vs 17.5% unpublished; P<.02). The main barriers to publication reported in the survey by authors whose trials were not published included lack of time (30%), change in employment or completion of training (25%), and results that were not of statistical significance (15%).

CONCLUSION

Among the obstetrical randomized clinical trials registered and marked as completed on ClinicalTrials.gov, more than 40% were unpublished. Unpublished trials were more likely to be smaller studies, conducted by researchers who reported experiencing a lack of time as the most common barrier to study publication.

Moving From Abstract to Manuscript

Research is often presented at scientific conferences in abstract form. Unfortunately, a large percentage of abstracts are never published as a full manuscript, but having a strong department process for research can increase the number of abstracts published as manuscripts. Publishing as a full manuscript is critical to the advancement of science due to the rigor of the peer review process. This manuscript covers common reasons abstracts are not published as manuscripts, tips to overcome mistakes, how to respond to reviewer comments, and specific tips to avoid flaws in each manuscript section.

Publishing on a Shoestring: Understanding Barriers, Challenges, and Unique Opportunities to Academic Productivity in Psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical track faculty within psychiatry may struggle to meet goals for academic scholarship, particularly publishing. In this review, we explore potential barriers to publication and solutions to support early career psychiatrists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence highlights challenges for faculty throughout academic practice, including barriers at the individual and systems levels. Within psychiatry, publication has favored biological studies with significant gaps in the literature serving as both an opportunity and challenge. Interventions underscore the importance of mentorship and propose incentivization to facilitate academic scholarship among clinical track faculty. Barriers to publication within psychiatry exist at the level of the individual, system, and field itself. This review shares potential solutions from across the medical literature and an example of an intervention from our own department. More studies are needed within the field of psychiatry to understand how to best support early career faculty members in their academic productivity, growth, and development.

COVID-19 burden, author affiliation and women's well-being: A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related publications including focus on low- and middle-income countries

Background

Published literature documents tremendous gender inequities in the social, economic and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, but less evidence has come from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and even less from LMIC-based authors. We examine whether a) COVID-19 burden and b) LMIC-based authorship were associated with academic publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being in LMICs.

Methods

We reviewed academic articles on COVID-19 and women's well-being in LMICs published between February 2020 and May 2021 (n=1076 articles), using six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, EconLit, RePeC, NBER). Multilevel, mixed effects linear regressions assessed the relationships between each of our independent variables - a) COVID-19 burden (cases/100 population, deaths/100 population, deaths/cases) and b) author's country of primary affiliation, with publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being, both overall and stratified by country income group.

Findings

Eight-eight percent of articles had lead and/or senior authors affiliated with in-country institutions. Linear mixed effect models indicate that COVID-19 cases and case fatality ratios in a country were significantly and positively associated with the number of publications related to COVID-19 and women's well-being, though these relationships were significant only in upper-middle income group countries in stratified analyses. LMIC lead and senior authorship were also significantly and positively associated with our outcome, after adjusting for COVID-19 burden.

Interpretation

While the majority of COVID-19 research examining women's well-being in LMICs in the first year and a half of the pandemic included country-affiliated author leadership, there were important gaps in representation. Findings highlight the importance of LMIC-based scholars to build local and gendered research in crises.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-018007).

How to overcome barriers to publication in low- and middle-income countries: Recommendations from early career psychiatrists and researchers from around the world

There is an increasing movement toward international collaboration and global discussion in mental health. If provided with the right opportunities, early career psychiatrists (ECPs) and researchers in mental health can contribute meaningfully to this discussion. However, they often experience multiple barriers when attempting to add their voices via academic publications. We represent a diverse group of ECPs and researchers from all six World Health Organization regions. In this piece, we discuss these barriers, grounded in our first-hand experiences, and put forth a series of recommendations. The most potentially beneficial and immediate way forward is ensuring a much-needed mentorship and support, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. In this regard, international organizations, especially those with a particular focus on education, such as the Section on Education in Psychiatry of the World Psychiatric Association, can play a pivotal role.

Dissemination of Quality Improvement Project Results After Local Presentation

Among quality improvement (QI) projects submitted for local presentation, the authors sought to understand how often project results were eventually disseminated through national/international presentation or peer-reviewed journal publication. Projects submitted for local presentation from 2016 to 2019 were linked to resulting publications or national/international conference presentations. Submitting authors were surveyed about their intentions, experience, and satisfaction with the process of disseminating their project results. Of 83 projects, 5 were published and another 10 were presented nationally/internationally. External dissemination was more likely with fewer project cycles and cost-focused outcomes. Survey responses indicated that most project leaders wanted to see their results published but held mixed opinions about resources and encouragement available to reach this goal. Few QI projects submitted for local presentation resulted in wider dissemination of project results. Sharing results and lessons learned beyond the local institution requires long-term planning, education, and support beginning early in the QI process.