CSE is proud to have been able to accept five poster abstracts, which will be available for viewing during the Annual Meeting. While posters will be up beginning Sunday evening, presenters will be at their poster during the President’s Reception on Monday evening to discuss their poster with attendees.
101. Getting to Know Your Authors: Findings from the IAPA 2018 Author Survey
Rachel Winfield, Taylor & Francis
In October 2018, Taylor & Francis surveyed Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal’s (IAPA) authors about the link between publishing in the journal and research impact. 67 of IAPA’s authors completed the online questionnaire, answering questions about how their article has made an impact since publication. Key findings from the survey focus around three core themes: 1. Why do authors choose IAPA? Understanding author priorities 2. Building a network: connecting with their research community 3. Making an impact: the real-world effects of publishing in IAPA In this poster, Taylor & Francis (IAPA’s publisher) draw out the key findings from this survey including top tips for other journal editors who may wish to better understand their community of authors.
102. Global Oceans but Regional Boards: Exploring Geographic Representation in the Editorial Boards of Aquatic Science Journals
Rafael J. Araújo, Geoffrey S. Shideler, Bulletin of Marine Science, University of Miami, RSMAS
Authors’ decisions for selecting a journal for manuscript submission can be a complex process. Many journal attributes can factor into this decision, ranging from journal prestige to publication cost. However, one of the factors that may influence an author’s decision to submit is the composition of a journal’s editorial board (EB). We surveyed EBs of 210 journals that comprise the category “aquatic science” in Scimago Lab (SJR) with the goal of testing (1) whether a journal’s publisher and/or country of origin have an effect on the geographical diversity of the journal’s EB; (2) whether an editor’s country of institutional affiliation had an effect on the geographical distribution of the EB; (3) the relationship between size and geographic diversity of an EB, and journal attributes such as prestige metrics and publication output; (4) how the geography of aquatic science editorial boards compared to the geographical diversity of the field’s scientific output, and (5) how common one person serves on more than one EB. Our preliminary results suggest that the composition and geography of EBs is varied yet concentrated on advanced economies. This aligns with scientific output, with the United States at the top of each category. We also found a positive relationship between number of editors on an EB and the number of articles published by that journal. Further, the larger an EB is, the more likely the board includes higher geographic diversity. While it is evident from our data that some individuals serve on multiple EBs, we found this to be uncommon. Lastly, our results indicate that, while oceans are global, the field of aquatic science suffers from underrepresentation by nations in the Global South, and EBs reflect that fact. The results of the present study can be used to make inferences on the impacts a diverse EB can have on a journal’s output and prestige, and ultimately the field of research, and encourage journals to expand the reach of their EBs beyond advanced economy nations.
103. Factors on Citation Impact of Publications in Engineering, Materials Science, and Medical Journals
Hyunju Jang, Sungkyunkwan University; Ki Woo Chun, College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; Hyungsun Kim, Inha University, Korea
Background, The purpose of this paper is to provide comparative evidence on the citation impact of publications in engineering, materials science, and medical journals by Korean and foreign authors and identify the bibliometric indicators associated with the citation impact of the publications. Methods, Among the 248 Korean journals indexed by Scopus, the three subject areas of engineering, materials science and medicine were selected for analysis. We chose a study period of 5-year from 2012 to 2016 and only examined articles and reviews. Our entire data set included 22,577 publications from engineering, 4,959 from materials science, and 25,957 from medicine. We evaluated the publications in each subject area using quantitative and qualitative indicators. Based on authors’ affiliations, publication type, and subject area, 12 groups were created. Then, we analyzed research performance by publication type to identify citation trends according to authors’ affiliations. Comparisons between groups were conducted without statistical tests because all data from each group were collected. To determine whether the number of citations was affected by the number of authors in the 12 groups, a regression analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 20.00. Results, We found that the citations count and publications in the top 10 citation percentile in these three subject areas were higher for reviews than for articles; further, the citation impact of articles and reviews by foreign authors was higher than that of articles and reviews by Korean authors. The number of authors had a weak relationship with citation impact based on the subject area, and the number of authors per review by foreign authors in materials science and medicine was negatively associated with citation impact. Moreover, the views count was found to be positively associated with the citation impact of publications in these three subject areas. Conclusion. The results of this study provide insights and statistical evidence indicating that journal publishers and editors in Korea should attempt to attract more publications by foreign authors and promote their publications to increase their visibility and likelihood of being cited.
104. Graphic Medicine as Physician Tool to Understand Their Patient’s Experience of a Medical Condition
Tom Janisse, The Permanente Journal
Background Engaging patients in their healthcare, listening to their stories, and improving the quality of their experience also depends on physicians understanding their patient’s experiences of a medical condition. Physicians have little time to converse with patients about this in the visit. Graphic Medicine – Comics – pictures and words together in sequence to tell a story – is a way to gain insight into a patient’s experience of what it’s like. Methods This is a small, mixed-method study to test the effect on physicians of reading a comic book, “My Degeneration: Parkinson’s Disease.” The 13 participants, including 11 physician-editors (representing 10 disciplines), answered a 7-question pre-survey before receiving and reading the book, and a 10-question post survey. Also, the 12 participants present at the recent Permanente Journal Editorial Team meeting, 3 days after the post survey, offered comments (60 minutes) on the survey results, then related their experience of reading the book, its attributes, and their recommendations for the comic book as an educational tool for residents and patients. Results Greatest Improvements were: “know patients’ wants,” (54%), “know treatments” (37%), “know patients’ needs” (34%) and “know patients’ experience” (30%). 82% recommended the comic book for resident education, and 73% for patients. Notable physician comments included: “My patients say: ‘Doc, you guys really need to understand what’s going on for me. It’s really hard for me.’” Another senior editor who just disclosed he’s been living with Parkinson’s Disease for 10 years, exclaimed, “Excellent book! And I’m well into my 80s.“ Other comments were: “For a patient to have a conversation with his disease, as in the book, is a wonderful idea.” “The things that people do to deal with their condition are remarkable!” “Combining pictures with words has triple the educational value for millennial residents who demand high yield.” “Recommend for all who may be interested including family members.” Conclusion A graphic comic format improves the level of knowledge and treatment of a chronic medical condition, and improves understanding of a patient’s needs and wants from a physician, and the patient’s experience, among a multi-disciplinary group of physician editors.
105. TRANSPOSE Landscape Study on Journal Preprint and Peer Review Policies
Jessica Polka, ASAPbio; Tony Ross-Hellauer, Know-Center; Samantha Hindle, PreReview; Jennifer Lin, Gary McDowell, Crossref, Future of Research; Stefan Reichmann, Naomi Penfold, Know-Center, ASAPbio
Background TRANSPOSE is a new collaborative initiative aiming to crowdsource a list of journal policies for (1) open peer review, (2) co-reviewer involvement, and (3) pre-printing. Here we will report the results of a closer investigation, currently underway and for which results will be available at the time of CSE, of a representative subset of journals to systematically taxonomize and analyse their stated peer review and preprinting policies. Methods We compiled a de-duplicated list of highly cited journals in all fields covered by Google Scholar. Two independent assessors applied a standardised data-collection instrument and protocol to determine what information is available online regarding peer review and preprint policies at each journal. The aim was to mirror the experience of a researcher who might wish to find this information online. Search began from the journal website, and internal links were followed from there. No secondary sources (e.g., assessor’s prior knowledge; external databases; contact with journal editorial staff) were used. After data collection, assessors collaborated to remove any discrepancies before analyzing the data in R to understand the distribution of journal policies by disciplinary category. Other statistical techniques were used to explore whether any correlations between factors such as domain and h-index are associated with different practices amongst the journals. Results Preliminary analyses show that general levels of uptake of the varying forms of open peer review remain low, and that information on co-reviewer and detailed pre-printing policies is rare. That these results are obtained from the most prominent, well-resourced journals, and across all domains, suggests that journals can be much clearer in their policies. More detailed analyses are currently being performed and will be available at the time of CSE. Conclusion This work highlights need for journals to clearly and explicitly state policies on their websites. While authors and reviewers may possess tacit knowledge about peer review or pre-printing practices within their fields, lack of explicit information may inhibit practices or expose researchers to risk. Publishers are the stewards of the scholarly record. They add great value in performing vital services. But they also benefit from content contributed by and quality-controlled by researchers. Given this, don’t publishers owe a duty of care to those authors and reviewers to be as transparent as possible in advising what they can and can’t do with that content, and under what conditions they contribute to this system?