Citability of Original Research and Reviews in Journals and Their Sponsored Supplements
نویسنده
چکیده
BACKGROUND The contents of pharmaceutical industry sponsored supplements to medical journals are perceived to be less credible than the contents of their parent journals. It is unknown if their contents are cited as often. The objective of this study was to quantify the citability of original research and reviews contained in supplements and compare it with that for the parent journal. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS This was a cohort study of 446 articles published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) and its supplements for calendar years 2000 and 2005. The total citation counts for each article up to October 5, 2009 were retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. The main outcome measure was the number of citations received by an article since publication. Regular journal articles included 114 from calendar year 2000 and 190 from 2005. Articles from supplements included 90 from 2000 and 52 from 2005. The median citation counts for the 3 years post-publication were 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-20), 14 (IQR, 8-20), 13.5 (IQR, 8-23), and 13.5 (IQR, 8-20), for the 2000 parent journal, 2000 supplements, 2005 parent journal, and 2005 supplements, respectively. Citation counts were higher for the articles in the supplements than the parent journal for the cohorts from 2000 (p = .02), and no different for the year 2005 cohorts (p = .88). The 2005 parent journal cohort had higher citation counts than the 2000 cohort (p = .007), in contrast to the supplements where citation counts remained the same (p = .94). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE Articles published in JCP supplements are robustly cited and thus can be influential in guiding clinical and research practice, as well as shaping critical thinking. Because they are printed under the sponsorship of commercial interests, they may be perceived as less than objective. A reasonable step to help improve this perception would be to ensure that supplements are peer-reviewed in the same way as regular articles in the parent journal.
منابع مشابه
Open access: changing global science publishing
The article reflects on open access as a strategy of changing the quality of science communication globally. Successful examples of open-access journals are presented to highlight implications of archiving in open digital repositories for the quality and citability of research output. Advantages and downsides of gold, green, and hybrid models of open access operating in diverse scientific envir...
متن کاملScientific Value of Systematic Reviews: Survey of Editors of Core Clinical Journals
BACKGROUND Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play a...
متن کاملThe Role of Probiotics on Controlling Diabetes Mellitus: An Umbrella Review
Background and purpose: There are some evidences about the effects of probiotics on controlling different types of diabetes and reviewing these studies could be of great help in clarifying the efficacy of these dietary supplements in management of diabetes. Thus, we aimed to review the role of probiotics on glycemic control and other biochemical parameters in patients with diabetes. Materials...
متن کاملPrevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.
CONTEXT Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. OBJECTIVES To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not n...
متن کاملChallenges and opportunities of publishing supplements at Arthritis Research & Therapy
are the cause of much debate in the world of journal publishing. Supplements are criticized for the fact that often they are funded by an external source, and journals have been known to shy away from their publication [1]. But is refusing to publish supplements the only answer? At Arthritis Research & Th erapy, we feel that – if subjected to the full rigors of peer review – supplements can pro...
متن کامل