MyMedR

Fulltext European Endodontic Journal - Moving Forward to a New Era

Çapar ID, Ahmed HMA, Ha WN

Eur Endod J, 2023 Aug;8(4):VII-VIII.

PMID: 38219040 DOI: 10.14744/eej.2023.94899

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Fulltext Understanding academic publications: duplicate publication and role of impact factor in promotion

Loh LC

International e-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education, 2010;4(2):-.

MyJurnal

Academic performance is still primarily judged on publications. Not surprisingly, pressure to publish for the purpose of academic standing or promotion can be huge. People have been put off from an academic career simply because of this necessity. This is unfortunate because publishing our research findings or knowledge is our core business and why we become academicians. The notion that teaching is the academician’s chief duty is only half correct. We should and can enjoy publishing if we accept this as an inseparable part of our job. (Copied from article).

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Correction: Abbasi, A. et al. Poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene oxide)-Based Hydroxide Exchange Separator Membranes for Zinc-Air Battery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3678

Abbasi A, Hosseini S, Somwangthanaroj A, Mohamad AA, Kheawhom S

Int J Mol Sci, 2020 01 07;21(2).

PMID: 31936147 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21020377

The authors would like to make the following corrections to their paper published in the International Journal of Molecular Science [...].

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index

Rahman MT, Regenstein JM, Abu Kassim NL, Karim MM

Account Res, 2021 11;28(8):492-516.

PMID: 33290665 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1860764

Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Fulltext Dealing with proofs

Ng KH, Peh WC

Singapore Med J, 2009 Dec;50(12):1134-7; quiz 1138.

PMID: 20087547

After submission and acceptance of a scientific paper by a journal, the final stages in the publishing process are copy-editing and proofreading. The primary purpose of this step is to ensure accurate and quality production of scientific papers. Authors are responsible for checking their proofs properly and in detail, ensuring that everything is correct as this is their last chance to make any changes before their work is set in print forever.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

What does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing?

Tsigaris P, Kendall G, Teixeira da Silva JA

J Prof Nurs, 2023;49:188-189.

PMID: 38042556 DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.08.002

The debate surrounding "predatory publishing" continues to be unable to find entirely effective solutions to dealing with this problem, despite fervent efforts by many academics and policy makers around the world. Given this situation, we were interested in appreciating whether ChatGPT would be able to offer insight and solutions, to complement current human-based efforts.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Correction to: Systematic review of pre-clinical chronic myeloid leukaemia

Kuan JW, Su AT, Leong CF, Osato M, Sashida G

Int J Hematol, 2019 Jan;109(1):130.

PMID: 30406326 DOI: 10.1007/s12185-018-2556-6

The author would like to correct the error in the publication of the original article. The corrected detail is given below for your reading.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Raising concerns about the Sepsis-3 definitions

Sartelli M, Kluger Y, Ansaloni L, Hardcastle TC, Rello J, Watkins RR, et al.

World J Emerg Surg, 2018;13:6.

PMID: 29416555 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-018-0165-6

The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery appreciates the great effort of the task force who derived and validated the Sepsis-3 definitions and considers the new definitions an important step forward in the evolution of our understanding of sepsis. Nevertheless, more than a year after their publication, we have a few concerns regarding the use of the Sepsis-3 definitions.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Correction to: Use of sterols and linear alkylbenzenes as molecular markers of sewage pollution in Southeast Asia

Thomes MW, Vaezzadeh V, Zakaria MP, Bong CW

Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2019 Nov;26(31):32672-32673.

PMID: 31520373 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-06373-7

The original publication of this paper contains a mistake. The correct image of figure 2 is shown in this paper.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Changes to the 'Author Guidelines' for Case Reports and Randomized Trials submitted to the International Endodontic Journal

Nagendrababu V, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Jul;53(7):885-886.

PMID: 32533798 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13309

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Fulltext A collaborative approach for research paper recommender system

Haruna K, Akmar Ismail M, Damiasih D, Sutopo J, Herawan T

PLoS One, 2017;12(10):e0184516.

PMID: 28981512 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184516

Research paper recommenders emerged over the last decade to ease finding publications relating to researchers' area of interest. The challenge was not just to provide researchers with very rich publications at any time, any place and in any form but to also offer the right publication to the right researcher in the right way. Several approaches exist in handling paper recommender systems. However, these approaches assumed the availability of the whole contents of the recommending papers to be freely accessible, which is not always true due to factors such as copyright restrictions. This paper presents a collaborative approach for research paper recommender system. By leveraging the advantages of collaborative filtering approach, we utilize the publicly available contextual metadata to infer the hidden associations that exist between research papers in order to personalize recommendations. The novelty of our proposed approach is that it provides personalized recommendations regardless of the research field and regardless of the user's expertise. Using a publicly available dataset, our proposed approach has recorded a significant improvement over other baseline methods in measuring both the overall performance and the ability to return relevant and useful publications at the top of the recommendation list.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Fulltext Writing the results

Ng KH, Peh WC

Singapore Med J, 2008 Dec;49(12):967-8; quiz 969.

PMID: 19122944

The purpose of the results section is to present the main data collected and the observations made during the research. It provides interpretation of the analysed data and does not contain details on the methods, materials or discussion. The first step in writing the results section is to review the analysed data and determine which results to present. This can be done by deciding which results are relevant to the question(s) presented in the introduction, and may be supplemented by illustrative tables and figures. The results section guides the reader through the questions investigated in the study and sets the stage for the discussion in the next section.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing/standards*

Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Abu Kassim NL, Mohd Bakri SK, Nusrat F, Salim E, Manjurul Karim M, Rahman MT

Account Res, 2024 Dec;31(1):56-71.

PMID: 35758245 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2094256

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing*

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

Chien PFW, Elsuity MA, Rashwan MM, Núñez-Núñez M, Khan KS, Zamora-Romero J, et al.

Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2024 Sep;166(3):984-993.

PMID: 38571333 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15488

BACKGROUND: Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing/standards

Fulltext JUMMEC: taking stock, consolidation and gaining in strength

Rosmawati Mohamed, Low, Wah Yun

JUMMEC, 2006;9(2):1-2.

MyJurnal

The year 2005 marked the rebirth of JUMMEC when the Editorial Board took over from its previous Editor with modest but realistic expectations. One year on, we have successfully achieved our initial expectation, that is, to encourage greater participation from our junior academics to write and publish in our very own journal, JUMMEC. As we head towards the end of 2006 and prepare to usher in 2007, we see JUMMEC consolidating and gaining in strength. Let us reflect on its past achievements and our expectations for the future.(Copied from article).

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Medical education research and the ethics of different publication models

Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff, Monrouxe, Lynn

Education in Medicine Journal, 2014;6(3):54-57.

MyJurnal

Journal business models are basically classified based on the source of income to cover publication costs and in general there are two main journal business models which are the toll-access and open-access. These leading to a question that still remains around the ethics of publishing academic work across the different journal business models in terms of (a) editorial decision-making and (b) the dissemination of research that has not been appropriately peer-reviewed for quality and rigor. This paper discussed about these two areas based on the literature and the authors' observations.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Correction to: Standardized extract of Ficus deltoidea stimulates insulin secretion and blocks hepatic glucose production by regulating the expression of glucose-metabolic genes in streptozitocin-induced diabetic rats

Farsi E, Ahmad M, Hor SY, Khadeer Ahamed MB, Yam MF, Khoo BY, et al.

BMC Complement Altern Med, 2018 09 27;18(1):262.

PMID: 30261874 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2333-3

After the publication of this article [1] it came to our attention that one author, Boon Yin Khoo, was erroneously omitted from the authorship list.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Correction to: Absence of Plasmodium inui and Plasmodium cynomolgi, but detection of Plasmodium knowlesi and Plasmodium vivax infections in asymptomatic humans in the Betong division of Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo

Siner A, Liew ST, Kadir KA, Mohamad DSA, Thomas FK, Zulkarnaen M, et al.

Malar J, 2017 11 06;16(1):445.

PMID: 29110664 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-2093-4

After publication of the article [1], it has been brought to our attention that two of the labels on Figure 4 have transposed. The labels "S-type SSU rRNA" and "A-type SSU rRNA" should be in opposite places.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Fulltext Correction to: The antiangiogenic activities of ethanolic crude extracts of four Salvia species

Zihlif M, Afifi F, Abu-Dahab R, Majid AMSA, Somrain H, Saleh MM, et al.

BMC Complement Altern Med, 2018 02 16;18(1):64.

PMID: 29452588 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2126-8

CORRECTION: After the publication [1] it came to the attention of the authors that one of the co-authors was incorrectly included as Hamza Somrain. The correct spelling is as follows: Hamzeh Sumrein.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Correction to: Suspended sediment load prediction using artificial neural network and ant lion optimization algorithm

Banadkooki FB, Ehteram M, Ahmed AN, Teo FY, Ebrahimi M, Fai CM, et al.

Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2020 Oct;27(30):38117-38119.

PMID: 32705552 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10139-x

Following the publication of the article it has come to the authors' attention that the first panel of Fig. 11 has been repeated with the second panel of Fig. 11.

Matched MeSH terms: Publishing

Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 75 in total