Transfusion Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston Editor, Transfusion Medicine Reviews Financial Disclosure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Present and Future of Medical Publication Sunny Dzik, MD Blood Transfusion Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston Editor, Transfusion Medicine Reviews Financial Disclosure: Stipend from Elsevier Publishing for my role as Editor of Transfusion Medicine Reviews. I have no other conflicts of interest to declare. For 20 centuries In the 15th Century Moveable type ! 1450 Source: wikipedia Henry Oldenburg 1st Scientific Editor Introduced the idea of scientific peer review Source: insights.uksg.org For 20 centuries In the 15th Century Now 1450 The Internet is changing all aspects of medical publication 1. Business model for publishers. 2. Metrics to ”rank” scientific publication. 3. Opportunity for fraud, plagiarism & the ability to catch it. 4. Dimensions of information transfer. 5. Sheer volume of information and importance of quality. 1. Business Models for Medical Publication Individual subscription model becoming extinct. Publishers sell a ‘bundle’ of journal titles to libraries. Users access individual articles on line. Packaging articles in “volumes” with “page numbers” may seem increasingly out-of-date.* *DOI = digital object identifier How Medical Libraries Used to Store Articles Medical College Library in Tanzania kcmuco.ac.tz/home/ ‘Open Access’ publishing . Article is made freely available to all online immediately after acceptance. Author, Institution, or Grant Funds pay an ‘article publication fee’. Some journals publish exclusively open access (PLOS, Biomed Central). Most journals are mix of subscription and open access options. Open access can offset subscription costs. Devised at the University of Leiden Vox Sanguinis: Open access $3300 Free self-archive access after 12 months Transfusion: Open access $3900 Free self-archive access after 12 months Transfusion Medicine Reviews: Open access $2500 Free self-archive access after 12 months Globally: Funders Embrace Open Access (but usually do not pay for it) Image courtesy of Elsevier 2. Metrics try to “rank value” (Score of a journal) Citations in 2017 from items published in 2015 & 2016 Impact Factor 2017 A A Impact Factor = B 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 B Transfusion Medicine Reviews Number of published documents from journal in 2015 & 2016 In 2017, 222 citations for TMR A articles published in 2015 & 2016 222 = = 4.11 B TMR published 54 papers 54 in 2015 & 2016 Source: 2017 Journal Citation Reports, Clarivate Analytics Alternative metrics (score of an article) . “Altmetrics” provide a score for each article based on media and social media activity. (The social chatter need not be positive !) Altmetric Citations versus Downloads: Citations versus Downloads: 100 manuscripts from Transfusion Medicine Reviews 7 0 0 0 Rx of Glanzmann’s Thrombastenia (2016) Patient Blood Management (2017) 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Review of MT ratio’s (2015) s d a 4 0 0 0 o l n w 3 0 0 0 o D 2 0 0 0 Mesenchymal stroma cells (2016) CAR T-cells (2016) 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 Rationale for INFORM trial (2016) C ita tio n s Journals serve both authors and readers Transfusion Medicine Reviews receives >100,000 downloads/year from 100 different countries. Who is writing ? Who is reading ? Authors for Transfusion Medicine Reviews Downloads for Transfusion Medicine Reviews Image courtesy of Elsevier Publication Activity for TMR (2013-2017) The color reflects the share of publications in TMR, in comparison to the other journals (data normalised to account for journal sizes). Blue TMR has very low share of the publications using this term…. Yellow, orange and red TMR publishes a higher share on this topic. Image courtesy of Elsevier 3. Fraud, conflict of interest, plagiarism Brian Wansink, PhD Head of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, Wansink announced (Sept ‘18) that he would retire from the university. 48 hours earlier, JAMA had retracted six of Wansink's studies, after Cornell told the JAMA Editors that the university could not vouch for the validity of his studies. Scientific Fraud Retractions from PubMed (1980-2010) 8 Fraudulent research Fake peer reviewer 6 Violation of Authorship 4 Duplicate publication 2 Conflicts of Interest ($$) Retractions / 100k pubs Retractions Plagiarism 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Copyright infringement Conflict of Interest: Financial fraud Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, resigned on Thursday amid reports that he had failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from health care companies in dozens of research articles. Dr. Baselga, a prominent figure in the world of cancer research, omitted his financial ties to companies like the Swiss drugmaker Roche in prestigious medical publications like the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. He also failed to disclose any company affiliations in articles he published in the journal Cancer Discovery, for which he serves as one of two editors in chief. Source: NY Times Right to Copy (copy-right) and Paste Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else’s words or ideas and presenting them as your own. Copyright infringement: the unauthorized use of copyrighted material, such as text, photos, videos, music, software, and other original content. When your work is published, you sign-over the copyright to the publisher. You no longer retain it. You cannot copy even your own prior words and re-present them without citation. Transfusion Medicine Reviews uses “iThenticate” 4. Dimensions of Information Transfer: Publishers are competing for innovations… . Graphical abstracts, maps, open data, 3D models, multimedia files – and more. Tools like ‘virtual microscopes’ allows readers to gain more insight into your work. 3D data visualizations (cell surface antigens, immunohematology, coagulation). Audio-visual teaching in Transfusion Medicine (“You Tube” with peer review). Devised at the University of Leiden Graphical Abstracts Google Maps 3D models Virtual Microscope AudioSlides Graphical Abstract If poorly done, a step backwards… Publishers want you to be able to promote your research Example: Share Links from Elsevier: After acceptance, you get a email with a link, which you can send to anyone. Those who click on the Share Link within a 50-day period go directly to the full article with no sign up or registration required (free). Source: Elsevier and Twitter Publishers will facilitate mechanisms for data sharing… Mendeley Data Data in Brief The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) believes there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share data generated by interventional clinical trials because trial participants have put themselves at risk. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after 1 January 2019 must include a data sharing plan in the trial’s registration. 5. The sheer volume of medical information Velterop J. Science 2015 Turning information into knowledge Too Much to read… In the digital world….Information must be “curated” If reading for clinical care… If you are an author…. Analytical Reviews Go to original primary source (in peer reviewed journals) publications from peer-reviewed journals. Textbooks (traditional or digital) List serves for selected articles (Transfusion Medicine Evidence Library) Practice Guidelines (be careful) Medical Publishing: 2018 Care of patients and advance of science depends upon getting to the truth. Quality of our Profession’s knowledge depends on independent peer review. Authors must take their ethical responsibilities very seriously. Journal Editors serve both authors and readers. The opportunity to share knowledge has never been better. How to review a paper Richard Kaufman MD Editor-in-Chief, TRANSFUSION Oct. 13, 2018 Faculty Disclosure (In compliance with ACCME policy, AABB requires the following disclosures to the session audience) • None www.aabb.org 2 Objectives After attending this activity, participants will demonstrate the ability to: • Discuss reasons to accept or reject a request to review a paper. • Describe key elements to consider when reviewing. • Explain the structure of a good review. www.aabb.org 3 You’ve just been invited to review a paper www.aabb.org 4 You’ve just been invited to review a paper www.aabb.org Mdbcomm.com 5 You’ve just been invited to review a paper www.aabb.org Someecards.com 6 You’ve just been invited to review a paper www.aabb.org Yiddishwit.com 7 You’ve just been invited to review a paper www.aabb.org Knowyourmeme.com 8 You’ve just been invited to review a paper • Someone values your expertise. • You will learn something new. • Your writing will improve. • You will help the field. • Someday, an anonymous person will agree to review your paper. www.aabb.org Dailytelegraph.com 9 When should you decline a review? • The topic is outside your scope of expertise. • You cannot do the review in the allotted time. • You have a meaningful conflict. www.aabb.org Tokyoing.net 10 So you’ve decided to do a review. Consider: 1. What is the question? 2. Is the question important? 3. How was the question answered? 4. Are the conclusions supported by the results? www.aabb.org esfsciencenew.wordpress.com 11 What is the question? www.aabb.org 12 What is the question? Example: Do pathogen-reduced platelets prevent bleeding as effectively as conventional platelets? www.aabb.org 13 What is the question? Clinical Research Question: Population Among hospitalized adult patients with AML Intervention does transfusing pathogen-reduced apheresis platelets Comparison versus standard apheresis platelets Outcome