DOCSLIB.ORG

“Predatory” Journals: an Evidence- Based Approach to Characterizing Them and Considering Where Research Ought to Be Published

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Predatory” Journals: an Evidence- Based Approach to Characterizing Them and Considering Where Research Ought to Be Published !"#$%&'(#)*+,(-#.&/01+&.+$23%$.4$5 6&0$%+&""#(&47+'(+47&#&4'$#383.9+ '7$:+&.%+4(.03%$#3.9+;7$#$+ #$0$&#47+(-97'+'(+6$+"-6/307$%+ !"#$%%"&%'"(%))#& #$%&'&"&()*'++%,"+-"+$%"./'0%1&'+2"-3"4++565"'/"751+'58" 3(83'88*%/+"-3"+$%"1%9('1%*%/+&"3-1"+$%",%:1%%"-3" ;-<+-15+%"=>$;?"'/"@7',%*'-8-:2 A<$--8"-3"@7',%*'-8-:2"5/,">()8'<"B%58+$" C5<(8+2"-3"D%,'<'/%" ./'0%1&'+2"-3"4++565" !"Larissa Shamseer, Ottawa, Canada, 2021 Table of Contents PREFACE vii Contributions of authors vii Statement of originality vii Statement of financial support vii Approvals vii Copyright viii Disclosures viii Acknowledgements ..ix Thesis Abstract .x Chapter 1: Thesis Background & Objectives 1 A publishing façade 1 Beall’s List 2 The predatory spectrum 3 What prompted predatory publishing and why has it sustained? 5 Digitalization of legitimate publishing provided fertile ground for predatory publishing 6 Financial support for APCs 6 The academic incentive 7 Why should we care about predatory publishing? 9 Deceptive journal practices confuse authors 10 The scientific community has limited knowledge about scholarly publishing 10 Legitimate open access publishing may be conflated with predatory publishing 11 Predatory journals are an indictment of legitimate publishing 12 Predatory journals may benefit from structural inequities in legitimate publishing 13 Predatory publishing is a threat to scientific integrity 16 Thesis Objectives 18 Structure of the thesis 18 Positionality Statement 19 References 21 Appendix 1 35 Harm from predatory journals vs other scholarly communications? 35 Chapter 2: Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross sectional comparison 37 ii Abstract 39 Background 40 Objectives 41 Methods 41 Design 41 Journal identification and selection 41 Data extraction process 42 Data extraction items 42 Data analysis 42 Results 43 Homepage and general characteristics 43 Metrics and indexing 44 Editors and editorial process 44 Publication ethics and policies 45 Publication model, fees, and copyright 45 Discussion 46 Non-biomedical scope of interest 46 Spelling and grammar 46 Fuzzy, distorted, or potentially unauthorized image 47 Language directed at authors 47 Manuscript submission and editorial process/policies 47 Very low APC and inappropriate copyright 47 In context of other research 49 Limitations 49 Conclusions 49 Future research 50 Availability of data and materials 51 Tables and Figures 52 References 66 Appendix 1: Author Contributions 68 Appendix 2: Clarifications to published text 70 Appendix 3: Examples of characteristics in predatory and legitimate journals 72 Appendix 4: Published Article 73 Appendix 5: Copyright permission 88 Chapter 3: Do predatory journals publish biomedical research? 90 What is published in predatory journals? 91 References 92 iii Chapter 4: Assessing the scientific content of predatory journals 94 Assessing the scientific content of predatory journals 95 Abstract 96 Background 97 Methods 98 Research Team 98 Team Training 98 Journal Sampling Strategy 98 Single publisher journals 98 Multiple Journal Publishers 99 Identifying Articles for Inclusion 99 Extraction of Epidemiological Characteristics 100 Completeness of Reporting Assessment 100 Data Management 101 De-duplication 101 Data Analysis 102 Differences Between Protocol and Study 103 Results 104 Assessment of Completeness of Reporting 104 Discussion 105 Limitations 106 Implications 107 Availability of Data and Materials 108 Acknowledgments 108 Author Information 108 Tables and Figures 109 References 119 Appendix 1: Author Contributions 121 Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) 121 Appendix 2: Supplementary Tables and Calculations 123 Appendix 3: Published Article 147 Appendix 4: Copyright permission 151 Chapter 5: Potential predatory waste 153 Predatory waste 153 Motivations for publishing in predatory journals 155 The role of funders 156 References 159 Chapter 6: Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals iv for funded research 163 Abstract 165 Background 166 Funders & Open Access 166 Methods 168 Data source 168 Sampling 169 Data extraction 169 Data analysis 170 Protocol deviations 170 Results 170 Open access and journal selection 171 Other journal characteristics mentioned by funders 172 Adherence to policies/recommendations 172 Discussion 173 Comparison to other research 173 Strengths and limitations 174 Implications and recommendations for funders 175 Explicit funder policies on publication expectations 175 Facilitating and monitoring adherence to funder policies 176 Areas of future research 177 Conclusion 177 Data Availability 177 Acknowledgements 178 Author Contributions 178 Competing Interests 178 Grant Information 178 Tables and Figures 179 References 206 Appendix 1: Author Contributions 211 Appendix 2: Published Article 213 Appendix 3: Copyright permission 237 Chapter 7: Thesis Discussion 241 Summary of research aims 241 Summary of research findings 241 Strengths of this research 243 Limitations of this research 244 Contributions to epidemiology 246 v Interpretation of findings 246 Not all journal processes are “trivial” 247 Are some journal processes “trivial”? 248 The value of science 248 Why have funders said little about predatory publishing? 250 Implications and recommendations for practice 252 1. The transparency of journal practices needs improvement 252 2. We should stop using Beall’s List 253 3. We should seriously reconsider use of the term “predatory journal” 254 4. Academic rewards should focus less on where research is published and more on what is published. 256 5. Rewarding preprint contributions may reduce predatory publishing 257 Recommendations for future research 260 Examine the trustworthiness of research published in predatory journals 260 Examine the nature of research effects reported in predatory journals 261 Explore inequities researchers face when selecting journals 262 Thesis Conclusion 263 References 265 vi PREFACE Contributions of authors I attest that I, Larissa Shamseer, am the primary author (first or co-first) of the three published research articles contained within this thesis. For each of these chapters, the contributions of all myself and all co-authors are described in Appendix 1 using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT https://www.casrai.org/credit.html). Statement of originality I declare that the research presented in this thesis represents original scientific work carried out in fulfillment of my PhD program in the School of Epidemiology and Public Health at the University of Ottawa. I received input and guidance from my PhD supervisor, my co-supervisor, my committee members, coauthors, and acknowledged collaborators throughout this thesis. I confirm that I co-conceived of and co-executed all studies, as described in the “Contributions of Authors” section. Statement of financial support During the first four years of my studies (May 2013 – April 2017) I was supported in-part by an admissions scholarship from the University of Ottawa. In 2014, I received a Destination 2020 Award from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa. In 2014, I was also awarded a one year student research stipend from Knowledge Translation Canada to support my research including training activities and purchase of software to facilitate my PhD. The research carried out in Chapters 2 and 4 were carried out, in part, as part of my employment with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Throughout my studies I have also been fortunate enough to attend, participate, and sometimes speak at conferences, symposia, meetings relevant to my studies. These activities were supported by the grants listed above and by my primary thesis supervisor, Dr. David Moher. Approvals No approvals were required to conduct the research described in this thesis. vii Copyright The copyright of published research in this thesis is retained by the authors and permits re-use and reproduction here. Publisher copyright permission statements are included as Appendices in the relevant chapters (2 and 4). Disclosures My spouse runs a scholarly peer review management company and as a result receives income from various academic and scientific societies and scholarly publishing houses. From 2015 onwards I was an Associate Editor (unpaid) for BMC Systematic Reviews. viii ACKNOWLEDEMENTS I would like to convey my gratitude to those who supported me during my doctoral studies. First and foremost is my primary PhD supervisor, Dr. David Moher. Since starting work with Dr. Moher at the Ottawa Hospital, as a research coordinator and later as a senior research associate, he has always encouraged me to perform beyond my comfort zone in research. He has also worked to foster my integration into his networks of colleagues by providing me with countless opportunities (and funding) to display my research abilities. His support over the past 10 years has fuelled substantial academic, professional, and personal growth in me and has shaped the direction of my future career. I will be forever grateful for his support, mentorship, and confidence in my abilities. I am also fortunate to have had one of the most brilliant and forward-thinking minds in research, Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw, as my co-supervisor. Over the 10 years that I have known Dr. Grimshaw he has proven to be one of the most effective mentors, teachers, and problem solvers in my academic career. I am appreciative of the time he has spent listening to me and providing guidance on research, academia, and life. I am also inspired by and thankful for his gracious
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stephen P. Lock on "Journalology"
    INSTITUTE FOn SCIENTl FICl NF0F4MAT10N8 3501 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19104 Stephen P. Lock on “Journalology” Number 3 January 15, 1990 I don’t remember exactly how long I have Lock: Editor and Scholar known Stephen P. Lock. Our first encounter was probably at a meeting of the Council of Biology Editors (CBE) some 20 years Stephen P. Lock was born in 1929 and re- ago. It is somewhat unsettling to realize that ceived his education at Queen’s College, so much time has gone by. Equally disquiet- Cambridge University, UK, and the Medical ing is the notion that Steve will soon retire College of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. as editor of the venerable British Medical Trained as a hematologist, he served on the Journal (BMJ). But in the near future Steve staffs of various London teaching hospitals, will indeed step down, having helped train including St. Bartholomew’s and the Hos- his successor, due to be appointed in the fall pital for Sick Children, before being ap- of 1990. pointed assistant editor of BMJ in 1964. It seems odd to refer to Lock as an elder After serving as senior assistant editor and statesman of biomedical editing-however deputy editor, Lock became editor in 1975. accurate that description might be. The word I am amused that Steve opened his talk that comes to mind when I think of Steve with the traditional, mythical reminder about is youth. This youthfidness is reflected in the estimates of the number of extant jour- his writing and in his approach to problems. nals.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinformatics
    Bioinformatics Bioinformatics is the combination of biology and information technology. The discipline encompasses any computational tools and methods used to manage, analyze and manipulate large sets of biological data. Essentially, bioinformatics has three components: The creation of databases allowing the storage and management of large biological data sets. The development of algorithms and statistics to determine relationships among members of large data sets. The use of these tools for the analysis and interpretation of various types of biological data, including DNA, RNA and protein sequences, protein structures, gene expression profiles, and biochemical pathways. The term bioinformatics first came into use in the 1990s and was originally synonymous with the management and analysis of DNA, RNA and protein sequence data. Computational tools for sequence analysis had been available since the 1960s, but this was a minority interest until advances in sequencing technology led to a rapid expansion in the number of stored sequences in databases such as GenBank. Now, the term has expanded to incorporate many other types of biological data, for example protein structures, gene expression profiles and protein interactions. Each of these areas requires its own set of databases, algorithms and statistical methods. Bioinformatics is largely, although not exclusively, a computer-based discipline. Computers are important in bioinformatics for two reasons: First, many bioinformatics problems require the same task to be repeated millions of times. For example, comparing a new sequence to every other sequence stored in a database or comparing a group of sequences systematically to determine evolutionary relationships. In such cases, the ability of computers to process information and test alternative solutions rapidly is indispensable.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Ag
    Comments of the Association of Research Libraries Concerning “Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies across the Federal Government” Submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, January 15, 2010 Summary Thank you for the opportunity to comment on “Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies Across the Federal Government.” Enhancing public access to federally funded research results has been and continues to be a priority for the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and its member libraries. We very much appreciate the interest and focus of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in stimulating a public discussion regarding the benefits of enhancing public access to federally funded research. ARL supports enhanced access to federally funded research resources because such policies are integrally tied to and support the mission of higher education and scholarship. ARL believes that extending public access policies to federally funded research to other science and technology agencies will be a central component of President Obama’s transparency and open Government initiative. We fully support such an extension. ARL is an association of 124 research libraries in North America. These libraries directly serve 4.2 million students and faculty and spend $1.3 billion annually on information resources of which 45% (in 2008) is spent of electronic resources. New investments in cyber and information infrastructure are critical components to advancing science and education and spurring innovation. Reports such as the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, reflect the pressing need to ensure an environment that is conducive to enabling the United States to meet the global challenges of the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 How to Make Experimental Economics
    This article is © Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/32996). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited. How to Make Experimental Economics Research More Reproducible: Lessons from Other Disciplines and a New Proposal1 Zacharias Maniadis, University of Southampton Fabio Tufano, University of Nottingham John A. List University of Chicago2 Abstract: Efforts in the spirit of this special issue aim at improving the reproducibility of experimental economics, in response to the recent discussions regarding the “research reproducibility crisis.” We put this endeavour in perspective by summarizing the main ways (to our knowledge) that have been proposed – by researchers from several disciplines – to alleviate the problem. We discuss the scope for economic theory to contribute to evaluating the proposals. We argue that a potential key impediment to replication is the expectation of negative reactions by the authors of the individual study, and suggest that incentives for having one’s work replicated should increase. JEL Codes: B40, C90 Keywords: False-Positives, Reproducibility, Replication Introduction Nearly a century ago Ronald Fisher began laying the groundwork of experimental practice, which remains today. Fisher’s work was highlighted by the experimental tripod: the concepts of replication, blocking, and randomization were the foundation on which the analysis of the experiment was based. The current volume of Research in Experimental Economics (REE for short) aims at helping experimental economists think more deeply about replication, which has attracted the attention of scholars in other disciplines for some time.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Utility of an Institutional Publications Officer: a Pilot Assessment
    Assessing the utility of an institutional publications officer: a pilot assessment Kelly D. Cobey1,2,3, James Galipeau1, Larissa Shamseer1,2 and David Moher1,2 1 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada 2 School of Epidemiology, Public Health, and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada 3 School of Natural Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom ABSTRACT Background. The scholarly publication landscape is changing rapidly. We investigated whether the introduction of an institutional publications officer might help facilitate better knowledge of publication topics and related resources, and effectively support researchers to publish. Methods. In September 2015, a purpose-built survey about researchers' knowledge and perceptions of publication practices was administered at five Ottawa area research institutions. Subsequently, we publicly announced a newly hired publications officer (KDC) who then began conducting outreach at two of the institutions. Specifically, the publications officer gave presentations, held one-to-one consultations, developed electronic newsletter content, and generated and maintained a webpage of resources. In March 2016, we re-surveyed our participants regarding their knowledge and perceptions of publishing. Mean scores to the perception questions, and the percent of correct responses to the knowledge questions, pre and post survey, were computed for each item. The difference between these means or calculated percentages was then examined across the survey measures. Results. 82 participants completed both surveys. Of this group, 29 indicated that they had exposure to the publications officer, while the remaining 53 indicated they did not. Interaction with the publications officer led to improvements in half of the knowledge items (7/14 variables).
    [Show full text]
  • What Price Affordability?
    Open access: What price affordability? Richard Poynder Independent journalist and blogger, Cheltenham, UK Correspondence to: Richard Poynder. Email: [email protected] Dating from 1665, the scholarly journal has served the research community well for over 300 years. In the past few decades, however, the subscription model it utilises has created a couple of apparently intractable problems—what we will call the affordability and accessibility problems. The affordability problem has its roots in the dramatic growth in research after World War II, a problem made worse by the constant above-inflation increases in the cost of journal subscriptions—which led to what librarians call the “serials crisis” [1]. The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that learned societies struggled to cope with the growing demand from researchers for publication outlets. Spotting a lucrative market opportunity, for-profit companies (led by Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press) began to launch new scholarly journals [2], and to invite learned societies to outsource their journals to them, on the promise that by doing so they would be able to generate more money to subsidise their other activities. Further aggravating the problem, it turns out that scholarly publishing does not operate like a classic market. For a number of reasons, no effective mechanisms for restraining prices have emerged [3]. In effect, scholarly publishers are as good as able to charge whatever they want for their journals. Editorial The upshot: Today even the wealthiest universities in the world can no longer afford to subscribe to all the journals their faculty need to do their work effectively [4], and the subscription model is now widely viewed as unsustainable so far as scholarly journal publishing is concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited
    publications Article How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited Bo-Christer Björk 1,*, Sari Kanto-Karvonen 2 and J. Tuomas Harviainen 2 1 Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; Sari.Kanto@ilmarinen.fi (S.K.-K.); tuomas.harviainen@tuni.fi (J.T.H.) * Correspondence: bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi Received: 19 February 2020; Accepted: 24 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations.
    [Show full text]
  • (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
    Policy and practice The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies* Erik von Elm,a Douglas G Altman,b Matthias Egger,a,c Stuart J Pocock,d Peter C Gøtzsche e & Jan P Vandenbroucke f for the STROBE Initiative Abstract Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: an Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data
    Developing Latin America Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo Alejandro Uribe-Tirado Maria E. Romero-Ortiz This article was originally published as: Machin-Mastromatteo, J.D., Uribe-Tirado, A., and Romero-Ortiz, M. E. (2016). Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data. Information Development, 32(5), 1806–1814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266666916671080 Abstract Sci-Hub hosts pirated copies of 51 million scientific papers from commercial publishers. This article presents the site’s characteristics, it criticizes that it might be perceived as a de-facto component of the Open Access movement, it replicates an analysis published in Science using its available usage data, but limiting it to Latin America, and presents implications caused by this site for information professionals, universities and libraries. Keywords: Sci-Hub, piracy, open access, scientific articles, academic databases, serials crisis Scientific articles are vital for students, professors and researchers in universities, research centers and other knowledge institutions worldwide. When academic publishing started, academies, institutions and professional associations gathered articles, assessed their quality, collected them in journals, printed and distributed its copies; with the added difficulty of not having digital technologies. Producing journals became unsustainable for some professional societies, so commercial scientific publishers started appearing and assumed printing, sales and distribution on their behalf, while academics retained the intellectual tasks. Elsevier, among the first publishers, emerged to cover operations costs and profit from sales, now it is part of an industry that grew from the process of scientific communication; a 10 billion US dollar business (Murphy, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [Show full text]
  • PMC Canada, UK PMC & Pubmed Central Why Pubmed Central Canada?
    PubMed Central Canada & Faculty Perspectives: Open Access to Health Research at York University Rajiv Nariani Science Librarian, York University Libraries CLA 2012 National Conference 1st June 2012 [email protected] PMC Canada, UK PMC & PubMed Central Why PubMed Central Canada? • Question: How do we strengthen PMC Canada? – How can it be unique? – Users perspectives about this online archival repository of published, peer-reviewed health and life sciences research publications • UK PMC & PubMed Central: Guides Timelines: PMC, UK PMC, PMCC National Institute of Health Research, UK PMCC (officially) PMCC NIH NIH (Voluntary) UKPMC - PubMed Central Classic (Mandatory) UK PMC (current) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Wellcome Trust CIHR Cancer Research, UK British Heart Foundation, Arthritis Research Campaign Launched 28th April 2010 CIHR Policy on Open Access to Research Compliance to CIHR Policy on OA Know your Journal! - Is the journal open access? DOAJ, PMC Journal list Address Copyright - Does the journal permit archiving? See (e.g. CARL Author SHERPA/RoMEO database Addendum) --------------------------------- - Notify publisher of CIHR policy - Amend agreement and retain rights Deposit in Open Access Archive Publish in an OA Journal - Fees are an eligible - PMCC expense - Institutional Repository http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/docs/PMCC_tutorial_ppt.pdf Journal List: CIHR Policy Compliance http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/journals/ Promoting PMC Canada launch at YUL CIHR funding & York University CIHR publications:
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Information Associates
    Drug Information Associates BRIEF: INFORMATION SERVICES IN AN ERA OF the use of new, expensive therapies (such as specialty UNPRECEDENTED EVIDENCE EXPANSION drugs, for example) be justified when compared to Heath Ford, PharmD, PhD | May 23, 2020 established practice?” In education, “can learners in certain outcome segments be expected to show Have you ever wondered … how effective is the statin improvement given new programs and substantial drug your doctor prescribed? Or the anti-depressant, increases in investment?” And in manufacturing, “are antipsychotic, or amphetamine? What about the recommended process improvements reasonable given expensive injectable medication your discount card or projected output expectations and investment costs?” drug coupon allows you to get every month for a low copay? And what about medical education (eg, medicine, These considerations validate the need for specialized nursing, pharmacy, dentistry)? Have you ever considered information services, specifically those centering on both the differences between your educational experience and retrieving and appraising scientific evidence. that of today’s professional students? How effective Information Retrieval & Appraisal Services in Medicine were educational strategies then compared to those employed today? In light of the extraordinary growth of the scientific literature, it is said that perhaps no industry is in greater The “Evidence Base” need of specialized information services than medicine. In all industries, especially medicine, the growing level of According to estimates, approximately 2.5 million experimentation and the pervasive expectation for an scientific journal manuscripts were published in 2009 in “evidence base” is very well established. Municipalities more than 29,000 journals.1 Between 1994 and 2001, and not-for-profit organizations, for instance, search for approximately 400,000 medical manuscripts were evidence-based interventions that address problems of published per year (on average),2 making medicine the homelessness, food insecurity, or public health.
    [Show full text]