Stephen P. Lock on "Journalology"

Copy Link

Essays of an Information Scientist: Journalology, KeyWords Plus, and other Essays, Vol:13, p.19, 1990 Current Contents, #3, p.3-8, January 15, 1990

Go to Reprint:: Journalology, Are the Quotes Needed?
Back to Introduction

Recommended publications

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).
Defining Covid-19 Elimination

EDITORIALS Department of Preventive and Social BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n1794 on 15 July 2021. Downloaded from Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Defining covid-19 elimination New Zealand Correspondence to: D C G Skegg Elimination is achievable and should not be confused with eradication [email protected] Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n1794 David CG Skegg, Philip C Hill http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1794 Speaking about progress towards ending the covid-19 “zero covid” for a prolonged period. Even with border Published: 15 July 2021 epidemic in the United States, Anthony Fauci said: restrictions and strict quarantine, incursions of the “We will end the epidemic phase, and we will likely virus occur from time to time, leading to clusters of get somewhere between control and elimination, infections and occasional large outbreaks. In the more likely closer to control.”1 Now authorities in Australian state of Victoria, for example, a resurgence England are abandoning most efforts to control, let of covid-19 last year peaked at over 700 cases a day, alone eliminate, the infection.2 Throughout the before being extinguished after three months.11 pandemic, the word “elimination” has been used in Despite such setbacks, Australia and New Zealand different senses. Many confuse elimination with remain healthy economies with largely normal eradication, which normally means permanent community life, apart from temporary border reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of an restrictions. Both are developing plans for a phased infection—as was achieved for smallpox.3 This reopening of borders. confusion helps to make the idea of eliminating The likely consequences of not aiming for elimination covid-19 seem impossible and not worth pursuing.
Open Access Policies of Leading Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study

Open access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655 on 20 June 2019. Downloaded from Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study Tim S Ellison, 1 Tim Koder, 2 Laura Schmidt, 2 Amy Williams, 1 Christopher C Winchester 2 To cite: Ellison TS, Koder T, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Schmidt L, et al. Open Objectives Academical and not-for-profit research access policies of leading funders are increasingly requiring that the research they ► This manuscript includes a cross-sectional analysis medical journals: a cross- fund must be published open access, with some insisting sectional study. BMJ Open of open access policies of medical journals with a on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC 2019;9:e028655. doi:10.1136/ high impact factor, including society-owned jour- BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed bmjopen-2018-028655 nals, from multiple publishers. to clarify the open access variants provided by leading ► The open access policies of all journals analysed ► Prepublication history medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY were clarified, and confirmation of our findings and additional material for licence for commercially funded research. was received by email from 97% of the contacted this paper are available Methods We identified medical journals with a 2015 online. To view these files, journals. impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded please visit the journal online ► Open access policies of the journals and publishers from the analysis journals that only publish review articles.
The Journal Impact Factor Denominator Defining Citable (Counted) Items

COMMENTARIES The Journal Impact Factor Denominator Defining Citable (Counted) Items Marie E. McVeigh, MS The items counted in the denominator of the impact fac- tor are identifiable in the Web of Science database by hav- Stephen J. Mann ing the index field document type set as “Article,” “Re- view,” or “Proceedings Paper” (a specialized subset of the VER ITS 30-YEAR HISTORY, THE JOURNAL IMPACT article document type). These document types identify the factor has been the subject of much discussion scholarly contribution of the journal to the literature and and debate.1 From its first release in 1975, bib- are counted as “citable items” in the denominator of the im- liometricians and library scientists discussed its pact factor. A journal accepted for coverage in the Thom- Ovalue and its vagaries. In the last decade, discussion has 6 son Reuters citation database is reviewed by experts who shifted to the way in which impact factor data are used. In consider the bibliographic and bibliometric characteristics an environment eager for objective measures of productiv- of all article types published by that journal (eg, items), which ity, relevance, and research value, the impact factor has been are covered by that journal in the context of other materi- applied broadly and indiscriminately.2,3 The impact factor als in the journal, the subject, and the database as a whole. has gone from being a measure of a journal’s citation influ- This journal-specific analysis identifies the journal sec- ence in the broader literature to a surrogate that assesses tions, subsections, or both that contain materials likely to the scholarly value of work published in that journal.
Core Competencies for Scientific Editors Of

Moher et al. BMC Medicine (2017) 15:167 DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0 CORRESPONDENCE Open Access Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement David Moher1,2* , James Galipeau3, Sabina Alam4, Virginia Barbour5, Kidist Bartolomeos6, Patricia Baskin7,8, Sally Bell-Syer9,10, Kelly D. Cobey1,2,11, Leighton Chan12, Jocalyn Clark13, Jonathan Deeks14, Annette Flanagin15, Paul Garner16, Anne-Marie Glenny17, Trish Groves18, Kurinchi Gurusamy19, Farrokh Habibzadeh20,21,22, Stefanie Jewell-Thomas23, Diane Kelsall24, José Florencio Lapeña Jr22,25,26,27, Harriet MacLehose28, Ana Marusic29,30, Joanne E. McKenzie31, Jay Shah32,33,34, Larissa Shamseer1,2, Sharon Straus35, Peter Tugwell2,36,37, Elizabeth Wager38,39, Margaret Winker22 and Getu Zhaori40 Abstract Background: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role. Methods: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. Results: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment. Conclusions: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal. Keywords: Core competencies, Scientific editor, Biomedical journal, Delphi, Expert consensus, Editor role Introduction and in guidance for members of editor organizations Scientific editors (editors are responsible for the content [3–8].
Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page

bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
ACADEMIC 1 Improving Healthcare Outcomes

Sharing knowledge and expertise ACADEMIC 1 Improving healthcare outcomes Sharing the newest ideas, opinions and data Supporting health professionals’ learning and development Developing tools to make information accessible and useful Using digital technology to make best evidence instantly available That’s what BMJ does. We’ve been doing it since 1840. 2 A healthier world Since starting out as the publisher of a single “We have a clear vision of ‘A Healthier World’ medical journal in 1840, we have developed a and use our values to inform the decisions unique range of capabilities to meet the needs professionals, institutions and organisations. we take to help achieve that vision. The voice of our customers is vitally • Leading source of medical information for over important to us - we listen and respond 170 years to their needs, ensuring we provide high- • The BMJ is the fourth most cited general quality evidence based products for medical journal in the world healthcare professionals, their institutions, • Each month, more than five million users visit organisations and governments.” our websites, where we have content available in 11 languages • Over 700,000 healthcare professionals from Peter Ashman more than 100 countries access our revision CEO, BMJ resources and online learning tools [email protected] bmj.com/company 3 Global healthcare knowledge provider BMJ shares knowledge and expertise to improve experiences, outcomes and value. From specialist publications and decision support to online learning, our products and services help improve the educational development of students and professionals. They also help organisations improve their research and development services. Alert Drive research to publication Receive customisable emails containing Help improve research outputs and interest-related content.
Journals from BMJ

Journals from BMJ journals.bmj.com BMJ started out over 170 years ago as Providing high quality content for health professionals and a medical journal, publishing our first researchers across the world. Our journals include not only the BMJ, research paper. but some of the most influential speciality journals in their field. Now, as a global brand with a worldwide audience, we help medical organisations and clinicians tackle today’s most critical • In the last 12 months, over 50 million unique users accessed healthcare challenges. our subscription journals online, generating over 107 million page views. What is an Our vision is to create ‘a healthier world’. • Nearly 80% of our titles saw Impact Factor rises in 2014. Impact Factor? BMJ’s journals division now publishes more than 50 of the • 21% of our users view journal content from mobile devices. An Impact Factor (IF) is a measure of world’s leading medical and allied science journals. In doing so, the frequency with which the average we have pioneered the migration to digital publishing and the article in a journal has been cited in development of open access. a particular year. The annual Journal For more information or to of Citation Reports impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent Today, our expertise extends to medical education, clinical arrange a trial, please contact: citable items published. Thus, the decision support, data analytics and quality improvement to BMJ Consortia sales impact factor of a journal is calculated enhance day to day decision-making and healthcare delivery. by dividing the number of current E: [email protected] year citations to the source items T: +44 (0) 20 7383 6438 published in that journal during the “At BMJ we believe the work we do previous two years.
NLM Board of Regents Public Service Working Group on Clinicaltrials.Gov Modernization

NLM Board of Regents Public Service Working Group on ClinicalTrials.gov Modernization Chair: Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Executive Secretary: Rebecca (Becky) J. Williams, PharmD, MPH, National Library of Medicine, NIH Board of Regents Members: • Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati, PhD, MPH, University of Southern California • Kent J. DeZee, MD, MPH, FACP, COL, MC, U.S. Army Office of the Surgeon General • Gary A. Puckrein, PhD, National Minority Quality Forum Ex Officio Members: • Lyric A. Jorgenson, PhD, Office of Science Policy, NIH • Pamela Reed Kearney, MD, Office of Extramural Research, NIH External Members: • Carrie Dykes, PhD, University of Rochester Medical Center • Alissa Gentile, MSN, RN, The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society • Sally A. Gore, MS, MS LIS, University of Massachusetts Medical School • Barbara Kress, BSN, RN, Merck • Seth A. Morgan, MD, National Multiple Sclerosis Society • Stephen J. Rosenfeld, MD, MBA, SACHRP • Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, Yale School of Medicine • Steven Woloshin, MD, The Dartmouth Institute Page 1 of 7 Biographies CHAIR: CARLOS R. JAÉN Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, is the Holly Distinguished Chair, Patient-Centered Medical Home, Professor and Chair of Family and Community Medicine, and Professor of Population Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Dr. Jaén’s research interests focus on improving preventive care for individuals of all ages and preventing complications from chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. He is passionate about building and studying high-performance primary care offices. He served on the panels that published smoking cessation guidelines in 1996 and 2000 and was co-chair of the panel that published an update in 2008.
Contents Commentaries Original Articles

Contents Volume 63 Issue 5 | GUT May 2014 Commentaries 753 Characterisation of faecal protease activity 705 Oesophageal mucosal barrier: a key factor in the in irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea: pathophysiology of non-erosive refl ux disease OPEN ACCESS origin and effect of gut transit (NERD) and a potential target for treatment D Tooth, K Garsed, G Singh, L Marciani, C Lam, P Woodland, D Sifrim I Fordham, A Fields, R Banwait, M Lingaya, R Layfi eld, M Hastings, P Whorwell, R Spiller Gut: first published as on 1 May 2014. Downloaded from Caption: Night view of the beautiful skyline of Chicago downtown. The Gut family wish everyone 706 The antidiabetic gutsy role of metformin a very successful DDW meeting in Chicago. uncovered? Infl ammatory bowel disease R Burcelin 761 Colonic mucosa-associated diffusely adherent afaC+ Escherichia coli expressing lpfA and pks An international journal of 707 Fbxw7 hotspot mutations and human OPEN ACCESS are increased in infl ammatory bowel disease gastroenterology and hepatology colon cancer: mechanistic insights and colon cancer Impact Factor: 10.732 M Prorok-Hamon, M K Friswell, A Alswied, Editor from new mouse models C L Roberts, F Song, P K Flanagan, P Knight, Emad El-Omar (UK) J E Grim Deputy Editor (Hepatology) C Codling, J R Marchesi, C Winstanley, N Hall, Alexander Gerbes (Germany) J M Rhodes, B J Campbell Deputy Editor (Luminal 709 Editing liver tumours Gastroenterology) S Colnot, P Fortes William Grady (USA) 771 Mortality and causes of death in Crohn’s disease: results from 20 years of follow-up
Developing PRISMA-RR, a Reporting Guideline for Rapid Reviews of Primary Studies (Protocol)

Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol) Adrienne Stevens1,2, Chantelle Garritty1,2, Mona Hersi1, David Moher1,3,4 1Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada; 2TRIBE Graduate Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia; 3Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada; 4School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Canada; Funding: The development of PRISMA-RR is supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR FRN-142310). The funder had no role in the development of this protocol and will not have a role in the data collection, analyses, interpretation of the data, and publication of the findings. Funding will be sought to develop the Explanation and Elaboration manuscript. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies February 2018 INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews are known to be the best evidence upon which to make healthcare decisions, but can take years to complete (1). Rapid reviews have emerged as accelerated and/or abbreviated versions of systematic reviews with certain concessions made in the systematic review process to accommodate decision-making situations that require an expedited compilation of the evidence (2). Rapid reviews are usually conducted for a specific requestor and are typically understood to take 6 months or less to complete. Rapid reviews may differ from systematic reviews in a number of ways, such as the number of abbreviated methods or shortcuts employed and the breadth or scope of the question(s) posed (2–4). Some rapid reviews involve accelerated data mining processes and targeted screening of studies.
National Citation Patterns of NEJM, the Lancet, JAMA and the BMJ in the Lay Press: a Quantitative Content Analysis

Open Access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018705 on 12 November 2017. Downloaded from National citation patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA and The BMJ in the lay press: a quantitative content analysis Gonzalo Casino,1 Roser Rius,2 Erik Cobo2 To cite: Casino G, Rius R, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Cobo E. National citation Objectives To analyse the total number of newspaper patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, articles citing the four leading general medical journals ► This is the first study that analyses the citations of JAMA and The BMJ in the and to describe national citation patterns. lay press: a quantitative the four leading general medical journals in the lay Design Quantitative content analysis. content analysis. BMJ Open press. Setting/sample Full text of 22 general newspapers in 2017;0:e018705. doi:10.1136/ ► This study shows the existence of a national factor 14 countries over the period 2008–2015, collected from bmjopen-2017-018705 in science communication that needs to be further LexisNexis. The 14 countries have been categorised into monitored and analysed. ► Prepublication history for four regions: the USA, the UK, Western World (European ► Citation and correspondence analyses offer a new this paper is available online. countries other than the UK, and Australia, New Zealand To view these files, please visit way to quantify and monitor the media impact of and Canada) and Rest of the World (other countries). the journal online (http:// dx. doi. scientific journals. Main outcome measure Press citations of four medical org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2017- ► This study is observational and descriptive; thus, it journals (two American: NEJM and JAMA; and two British: 018705).