Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type

This study examines the dissemination of trial results by data source (ie, ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed) and funder type (ie, industry and nonindustry).

JAMA Network Articles of the Year 2022

This Medical News article is our annual roundup of the top-viewed articles from all JAMA Network journals.

Association between Industry Payments and Published Position on Use of Devices for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest.

METHODS

We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database.

RESULTS

We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest.

The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good

This paper provides an institutional and empirical analysis of the highly concentrated market of academic publishing, characterized by over proportionally high profit margins for publishing companies. The availability of latest research findings is an important issue for researchers, universities and politicians alike. Open access (OA) publication provides a promising but also costly solution to overcome this problem. However, in this paper we argue that OA publication costs are an important, but by far not the only way for academic publishers to gain access to public funding. In contrast, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the channels through which public expenditure benefits big academic publishing companies. Furthermore, we offer the results of an explorative case study, where we estimate the annual financial flows of public expenditures in Austria for the field of social sciences. In all, these expenditures add up to about 66.55 to 103.2 million € a year, which amounts to a fourth of total public funding for this field. Against this background, we contribute to the debate whether and to what extent public subsidies are justified for economically successful companies.

Scientific encounters between Colombia and the United States analyzed through publishing practices in Caldasia journal: The birds of the Republic of Colombia as a publishing event

In 1948, American ornithologist Rodolphe Meyer de Schauensee began publishing what would be the most complete list of birds from Colombia that had ever been printed up to that time. His work was called The Birds of the Republic of Colombia (TBRC), and at the invitation of Armando Dugand, the director of the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia and of the Caldasia journal, this work was exclusively published in the journal in five installments spanning four years. This paper analyzes the publishing aspects that particularly influenced the process of carrying out this work, with the objective of showing that scientific practices and publishing practices are not two absolutely separate domains. The circuit of communication present in TBRC's development is analyzed, specifically the efforts of the editor, printer and author to bring this work to fruition. This analysis demonstrates the following: (i) how the scientific interests of Meyer and the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales converge, (ii) the contradictions between scientific interests that promoted the publication of TBRC and the publishing rationale of a journal and (iii) how unforeseen publishing issues of the time, such as the increase in printing costs due to inflation, influenced the final structure of the work.

Secure and reliable blockchain-based eBook transaction system for self-published eBook trading

As eBook readers have expanded on the market, various online eBook markets have arisen as well. Currently, the online eBook market consists of at least publishers and online platform providers and authors, and these actors inevitably incur intermediate costs between them. In this paper, we introduce a blockchain-based eBook market system that enables self-published eBook trading and direct payments from readers to authors without any trusted party; because authors publish themselves and readers purchase directly from authors, neither actor incurs any intermediate costs. However, because of this trustless environment, the validity, ownership and intellectual property of digital contents cannot be verified and protected, and the safety of purchase transactions cannot be ensured. To address these shortcomings, we propose a secure and reliable eBook transaction system that satisfies the following security requirements: (1) verification of the ownership of each eBook, (2) confidentiality of eBook contents, (3) authorization of a right to read a book, (4) authentication of a legitimate purchaser, (5) verification of the validity and integrity of eBook contents, (6) safety of direct purchase transactions, and (7) preventing eBook piracy and illegal distribution. We provide practical cryptographic protocols for the proposed system and analyze the security and simulated performance of the proposed schemes.

Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?

Scholarly communication in science, technology, and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests-publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing, as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management, and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal, and ethical dilemmas that require solutions, while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors' perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.

The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers

BACKGROUND

Most research manuscripts are not accepted for publication on first submission. A major part of the resubmission process is reformatting to another journal's specific requirements, a process separate from revising the scientific content. There has been little research to understand the magnitude of the burden imposed by the current resubmission process.

METHODS

We analyzed original research article submission requirements from twelve randomly selected journals in each of eight scientific and clinical focus areas from the InCites Journal Citation Reports database. From the 96 journals selected, we randomly identified three recently published manuscripts and sent surveys to those first and/or corresponding authors (288 total) to solicit information on time spent reformatting resubmissions and opinions on the process.

FINDINGS

There was significant variation in manuscript submission requirements for journals within the same scientific focus and only 4% of journals offered a fully format-free initial submission. Of 203 authors responding (71.5% response rate), only 11.8% expressed satisfaction with the resubmission process and 91% desired reforming the current system. Time spent on reformatting delays most publications by at least two weeks and by over three months in about 20% of manuscripts. The effort to comply with submission requirements has significant global economic burden, estimated at over $1.1 billion dollars annually when accounting for a research team's time.

INTERPRETATION

We demonstrate that there is significant resource utilization associated with resubmitting manuscripts, heretofore not properly quantified. The vast majority of authors are not satisfied with the current process. Addressing these issues by reconciling reformatting requirements among journals or adopting a universal format-free initial submission policy would help resolve a major subject for the scientific research community and provide more efficient dissemination of findings.

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Academical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.

METHODS

We identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.

CONCLUSIONS

Most leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

Trends and Bibliometric Impact of Research Grants of the Spanish Society of Cardiology/Spanish Heart Foundation (2007-2012)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The Spanish Society of Cardiology/Spanish Heart Foundation (SEC/FEC) annually awards grants for cardiovascular research projects. Our objective was to analyze the trend in these investments and their resulting scientific production from 2007 to 2012.

METHODS

A search of the publications funded by the SEC/FEC was carried out, according to the following inclusion criteria: publication in a journal indexed in MEDLINE or EMBASE, publication date after the grant, authorship by the principal investigator of the grant, and acknowledgment of SEC/FEC funding. The impact factor and subsequent citations of the articles were analyzed (Web of Science).

RESULTS

A total of 235 grants were awarded (39/y) with an allocation of €3 854 300 (€642 383/y), 37% of them to women. In all, 122 publications resulted from 88 research projects (37%) funded by the SEC/FEC. Up to October 2017, these publications had received 2258 citations in subsequent studies in the Web of Science, with a mean of 18.5 and a median of 8 citations/study.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the economic crisis, the mean number and size of the grants awarded by the SEC/FEC increased in the period analyzed. Grants were awarded on an equal opportunity basis to men and women. The bibliometric impact of the funded projects is acceptable, although efforts should be made to improve it.

Science Without Publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access

In this Perspective, a group of national funders, joined by the European Commission and the European Research Council, announce plans to make Open Access publishing mandatory for recipients of their agencies' research funding.

Chinese institutional payments for publishing dermatology journal articles

Cash prizes for academic publication were introduced by the Department of Physics at Nanjing University in the 1990s. Most Chinese universities and research institutions have established cash rewards for first authors of publications. Potential payments ranged from ~$14,000 for an original research article in JAAD to ~$2000 for a case report in JAMA Dermatology. We examined rewards for publication of academic dermatological articles in China by searching for the cash-reward policies of general and dermatology Chinese hospitals. Specific cash-rewards for publication in the top three highest impact dermatological journals were recorded and compared between two dermatological hospitals, four general hospitals, and Chinese national core journals. Rewards were based upon the Science Citation Index (SCI), impact factor (IF) and publication type. Payment policies were compared between dermatological hospital and general hospitals using the t-test. There was no statistically significant difference between the cash reward payments allotted by general versus dermatological hospitals in China (P=0.32). Chinese authors may receive monetary rewards for a publication in a top dermatology journal based upon journal impact factor and publication type. These policies motivate academic publications and provide an alternative means to reward researchers for their scientific achievements than currently practiced in the West.

Open Access Publishing and Author-Pays Business Models: A Survey of Authors’ Knowledge and Perceptions

Objectives

We aimed to assess journal authors’ current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.

Design

An electronic survey.

Setting

Authors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004.

Main outcome measures

Familiarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing. Results: 468/1113 (42%) responded. Prior to definitions being provided, 47% (222/468) and 38% (176/468) reported they were familiar with the terms ‘open access’ and ‘authorpays’ publishing, respectively. Some who did not at first recognize the terms, did claim to recognize them when they were defined. Only 10% (49/468) had submitted to an author-pays journal. Compared with non-open access subscription-based journals, 35% agreed that open access author-pays journals have a greater capacity to publish more content making it easier to get published, 27% thought they had lower impact factors, 31% thought they had faster and more timely publicaitons, and 46% agreed that people will think anyone can pay to get published. 55% (256/468) thought they would not continue to submit to their respective journal if it became open access and charged, largely because of the reputaiton of the journals. Half (54%, 255/468) said open access has ‘no impact’ or was ‘low priority’ in their submission decisions. Two-thirds (66%, 308/468) said they would prefer to submit to a non-open access subscription-based journal than an open access author-pays journal. Over half thought they would have to make a contribution or pay the full cost of an author charge (56%, 262/468).

Conclusions

The survey yielded useful information about respondents’ knowledge and perceptions of these publishing models. Authors have limited familiarity with the concept of open-access publishing and surrounding issues. Currently, open access policies have little impact on authors’ decision of where to submit papers.

The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research

Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [ http://www.rsmpress.co.uk ], and this is the 6th in the series published in the JRSM.

Poor Access for African Researchers to African Emergency Care Publications: A Cross-sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Based on relative population size and burden of disease, emergency care publication outputs from low- and middle-income regions are disproportionately lower than those of high-income regions. Ironically, outputs from regions with higher publication rates are often less relevant in the African context. As a result, the dissemination of and access to local research is essential to local researchers, but the cost of this access (actual and cost-wise) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to describe access to African emergency care publications in terms of publisher-based access (open access or subscription) and alternate access (self-archived or author provided), as well as the cost of access.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study using all emergency medicine publications included in Scopus between 2011 and 2015. A sequential search strategy described access to each article, and we calculated mean article charges against the purchasing power parity index (used to describe out-of-pocket expense).

RESULTS

We included 666 publications from 49 journals, of which 395 (59.3%) were open access. For subscription-based articles, 106 (39.1%) were self-archived, 60 (22.1%) were author-provided, and 105 (38.8%) were inaccessible. Mean article access cost was $36.44, and mean processing charge was $2,319.34. Using the purchasing power parity index it was calculated that equivalent out-of-pocket expenditure for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors would respectively be $15.77, $10.44 and $13.04 for access, and $1,004.02, $664.36 and $830.27 for processing. Based on this, the corrected cost of a single-unit article access or process charge for South African, Ghanaian and Tanzanian authors, respectively, was 2.3, 3.5 and 2.8 times higher than the standard rate.

CONCLUSION

One in six African emergency care publications are inaccessible outside institutional library subscriptions; additionally, the cost of access to publications in low- and middle-income countries appears prohibitive. Publishers should strongly consider revising pricing for more equitable access for researchers from low- and middle-income countries.

Global knowledge of medicine: Experiences from Tuzla and Banjaluka, Bosnia & Herzegovina

When English became lingua franca, a significant change in the language of scientific publication in Central and Eastern European countries occurred; many journals instead of the local language, and German, French or Russian used English. The shift occurred due to the intention of both the journal editors and contributors to achieve international recognition and inclusion of the journal in prestigious international medical databases. As a consequence, publications in English are cited on average six times more frequently than those in German, Japanese or French. In the Northern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), three medical journals are published in English. However, these journals are not yet included in the Medline indexing base. In unenviable socio-economic state such as B&H, one cannot expect enough quality submissions to recognized journals. Gross domestic product per capita in 2012 in B&H, neighboring Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia was 9,545; 21,314; 13,020 and 27,474 US$, respectively. Thus gross domestic expenditure on research and development in 2009 of about 0.02%, 0.85%, 0.923% and 1.86% in these states clearly shows incapability of B&H to support adequately recognized scientific research. Temporarily, the main goal for the majority of the medical professionals is to keep health of patients in modest circumstances, and reproduce new generations of qualified practitioners. For that reason, there is a long way to reach the noble point of "the internationally recognized evaluation criteria" for assessing scientific accomplishments.

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

BACKGROUND

The process of "mapping" is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement.

METHODS

In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.

RESULTS

From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite the publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user-friendly 23-item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

BACKGROUND

The process of "mapping" is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement.

METHODS

In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.

RESULTS

From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

FIT FOR PRINT: DEVELOPING AN INSTITUTIONAL MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC PERIODICAL PUBLISHING IN ENGLAND, 1665-CA. 1714

This paper explores the contested afterlife of Philosophical Transactions following the death of its founder, Henry Oldenburg. It investigates the complex interrelation between the institution and the periodical at a time when the latter was supposedly independent, and outlines the competing proposals for institutional publishing in science contemplated in the Royal Society, linking some publications that were actually attempted to those proposals and to the Society's attempts to revitalize its experimental programme between 1677 and 1687. It argues that the Society was concerned to produce experimental natural knowledge over which it could claim ownership, and intended this work for publication in other venues than Transactions, whereas the periodical was seen as a more suitable site for work reported to the Society than for research that the institution had primarily produced. It was only from the early 1690s, after the collapse of the Society's experimental programme, that Transactions gradually became a more straightforward reflection of the mainstream of Royal Society activity, paving the way for its formal reinvention as the official publication of the Society in 1752.

JOURNALS, LEARNED SOCIETIES AND MONEY: PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, CA. 1750-1900

This paper investigates the finances of the Royal Society and its Philosophical Transactions, showing that in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries journal publishing was a drain on funds rather than a source of income. Even without any expectation of profit, the costs of producing Transactions nevertheless had to be covered, and the way in which this was done reflected the changing financial situation of the Society. An examination of the Society's financial accounts and minute books reveals the tensions between the Society's desire to promote the widespread communication of natural knowledge, and the ever-increasing cost of doing so, particularly by the late nineteenth century.

THE PROFITS AND PERILS OF PUBLICITY: ALLGEMEINE LITERATUR- ZEITUNG, THE THURN UND TAXIS POST, AND THE PERIODICAL TRADE AT THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Recent historiography on the growth of periodical publishing has emphasized newspapers and journals as constituents of an emergent communications system in early modern Europe. This system comprised the newspapers, journals and other publications that contributed its content, and also the postal systems that were the principal method of distributing that content. This article describes how the growth of this system in central Europe was supported in large measure by financial incentives that it offered to both constituents. First, in contrast with postal systems in France and the UK, the Thurn und Taxis Reichspost inserted itself as a middleman in the sale of periodicals, which gave the Reichspost an incentive to promote the trade. Second, the financial conditions for periodical publication made their costs depend more heavily on costs that were scalable to circulation than is true today, which resulted in the viability of publications with a lower circulation. The same cost structure also made it possible for certain prominent periodicals of the era to earn considerable profits for their publishers, as illustrated in this article by Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, which was published in Jena from 1785.

Knowledge and attitude of health researchers from India towards paying to publish and open access journals

Knowledge and attitude of 2509 Indian health researchers towards open access publishing and authors paying to publish model was evaluated. 55.6% researchers had knowledge about open access and 76% about Author pay model. 72% of Researchers were not interested to pay publication charges. Lack of research grants were the primary reason for inability to pay publication charges.

Publish or perish, and pay--the new paradigm of open-access journals

OBJECTIVES

The new open-access journal business model is changing the publication landscape and residents and junior faculty should be aware of these changes.

DESIGN

A national survey of surgery program directors and residents was performed.

RESULTS

Open-access journals have been growing over the past decade, and many traditional printed journals are also sponsoring open-access options (the hybrid model) for accepted articles. Authors need to be aware of the new publishing paradigm and potential costs involved in publishing their work.