Foreword – Increase in clinical trials for probiotics and prebiotics

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Venema
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
10Th Anniversary ◽  
The Future

After a steady increase over recent years, last year we experienced our first drop in Impact Factor (IF): from 3.301 to 2.923. Although last year I concluded that I was pretty awful at predicting the future (Venema, 2017; and I still haven’t found a probiotic to improve that …), this result was not entirely unexpected. As a young journal (we have yet to celebrate our 10th anniversary), the IF will inevitably fluctuate a little. I keep track of the IF development over the course of the year and we are well on our way to achieving an IF of above 2 again (with still another 6 months to go until the end of June, when the new impact factors will be provided by Clarivate Analytics), which isn’t bad at all for a young journal.

Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 708-712
Author(s):  
John A. Kellum
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Consensus Conferences ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. <b><i>Results and Conclusions:</i></b> Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, <i>p</i> = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited &#x3e;100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.

Internationalisation and Impact Factors: A Communication from the Editorial Board

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Corr ◽  
Lynne Goodacre ◽  
Anita Atwal ◽  
Gail Mountain ◽  
Barbara Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
British Journal ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapy ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Work In Progress ◽  
The Future ◽  
Future Direction

In response to correspondence relating to the need to consider the internationalisation of the British Journal of Occupational Therapy and to achieve an impact factor rating, this communication from its Editorial Board discusses the issues involved and provides information on work in progress. The relevance to clinical practice is also highlighted. It is hoped that this communication will lead to discussion on the future direction of the journal.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective: To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion. Methods: Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) and if there were no randomized controlled trial (RCT) published between 1 st January 2016 and 1 st January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Data sharing policy was detailed in 3 categories, the International committee of medical journal editors (ICMJE) compliant, optional or inexistent. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT. Results: Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) was retrieved in 41 journals (50%); Data-sharing statement instructions were ICMJE compliant in four cases (4.9%), optional in 45% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective: To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion. Methods: Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) and if there were no randomized controlled trial (RCT) published between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Data sharing policy was detailed in 3 categories, inclusion of data sharing policy mandatory, optional or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT. Results: Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) was retrieved in 41 journals (50%); Data-sharing statement instructions were mandatory in four cases (4.9%), optional in 45% (n=37) and not available in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

The Impact of an International Network (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) for Clinical Research on Global Capacity for Gynecologic Cancer Clinical Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-818
Author(s):  
Gavin C.E. Stuart ◽  
Henry C. Kitchener ◽  
Jan B. Vermorken ◽  
Michael J. Quinn ◽  
William Small ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Gynecologic Cancer ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Global Level ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to demonstrate that the construction of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level.Materials and MethodsThe GCIG is a collaboration of 29 international cooperative clinical trial groups committed to conduct of high-quality phase 3 trials among women with gynecologic cancer. A complete bibliography of the reported phase 3 trials has been developed and is available on the GCIG Web site http://www.gciggroup.com. A “GCIG trial” is a trial in which any 2 or more GCIG member groups are formally involved. We reviewed the output of the GCIG from 1997 to 2015 with respect to member participation and quality of publication (impact factor and citation index). The publications are considered in 3 cohorts, 1997 to 2002, 2003 to 2008, and 2009 to 2014, for the purposes of comparison and progress. A social network map has been developed for these publications to identify how the GCIG has increased capacity for clinical trials globally.ResultsUsing a global map, the number of member groups in the GCIG has increased in each of the 3 periods. The total annual number of publications and citations within the 1997 to 2015 period has increased significantly. The average number of citations per publication is demonstrated in each of the 3 periods. The steady increase in the number of citations is used as a proxy for the impact of the publications. The impact factor of the journal and the number of citations are reported for the 10 most highly cited publications. Finally, using a social networking methodology, networking has visibly and numerically increased in each of the 3 periods.ConclusionsEvidence supports that the construction of the GCIG has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level among women with gynecologic cancer.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective: To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.Methods: Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors, (OIA) and or if they had published randomized controlled trial (RCT) between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data sharing policy mandatory, optional or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”; a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT. Results: Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n=37), and not included in 50% (n=41).No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lombard ◽  
Anis Gasmi ◽  
Laurent Sulpice ◽  
Karim Boudjema ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective To describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion.Methods Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the instructions for authors and if there were no RCT published between January 2016 and January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a “COIs” disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT.Results Among the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 (94%) were included in the analysis: 67 (77%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (17.2%) had published at least one RCT between 2016-2019. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) were ICMJE-compliant in four cases (4.88%), weaker in 45.12% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or weaker). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.Conclusion Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Uniformization of journal requirements vis-à-vis ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Lombard ◽  
A. Gasmi ◽  
L. Sulpice ◽  
K. Boudjema ◽  
F. Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Surgical Journals

Abstract Objective To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion. Methods Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT. Results Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75]. The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41). No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

scholarly journals Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Lombard ◽  
A. Gasmi ◽  
L. Sulpice ◽  
K. Boudjema ◽  
F. Naudet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Research Transparency ◽  
Surgical Journals

AbstractObjectiveTo describe the surgical journal position statement on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe the other features of their research transparency promotion.MethodsOnly “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor superior to 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were not included if there were no explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the instructions for authors and if there were no RCT published between January 2016 and January 2019. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy in the instructions for authors. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” policy; a “COIs” disclosure requirement and a specific reference to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for RCT.ResultsAmong the 87 surgical journals eligible, 82 (94%) were included in the analysis: 67 (77%) had explicit instructions for RCT and of the remaining, 15 (17.2%) had published at least one RCT between 2016-2019. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR=2.48-3.77] and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR=5-20.75]. Data-sharing statement instructions (primary outcome) were ICMJE-compliant in four cases (4.88%), weaker in 45.12% (n=37) and inexistent in 50% (n=41) of the journals. As for data-sharing statements, no association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (ICMJE-compliant or weaker). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with ICMJE allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.ConclusionResearch transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Uniformization of journal requirements vis-à-vis ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

Der Impact Factor

Phlebologie ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (03) ◽  
pp. 77-83
Author(s):  
A. Finzen
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Wissenschaftliche Karrieren

ZusammenfassungWissenschaftliche Leistungen leben von der Originalität ihrer Urheber. Der Ver-such, sie zu quantifizieren, erscheint als Widerspruch in sich. Um so irritierender ist der Siegeszug des sogenannten Impact Factors, eines Konstrukts des amerikanischen Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), das den Anspruch stellt, über die Häufigkeit der Zitierung von – vom ISI erfaßten – Zeitschriften das Gewicht der in diesen publizierenden Wissenschaftler zu messen. Seit naturwissenschaftliche und medizinische Forschungseinrichtungen und Fakultäten dazu übergehen, den Impact Factor zur Grundlage für die Verteilung von Forschungsgeldern und zur Guillotine für wissenschaftliche Karrieren zu machen, schickt er sich an, die internationale Wissenschaftskultur zu verändern. Deshalb ist es an der Zeit, daß die Öffentlichkeit dieses Zeitgeistphänomen zur Kenntnis nimmt und sich mit seinen Folgen auseinandersetzt.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document