Impact factor statistics and publication practice: What can we learn? (Editorial)

Peer review procedures and citation statistics are important yet often neglected components of the scientific publication process. Here I discuss fundamental consequences of such quality measures for the scientific community and propose three remedial actions: (1) use of a ''Combined Impact Estimate'' as a measure of citation statistics, (2) adoption of an open reviewing policy and (3) acceleration of the publication process in order to raise the reputation of the entire discipline (in our case: behavioural science). Authors, reviewers and editors are invited to contribute to the improvement of publication practice.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Publication activities of German junior researchers in academic medicine: which factors impact impact factors?

Previous studies have shown medical students in Germany to have little interest in research while at the same time there is a lack of physician scientists. This study’s aim is to investigate factors influencing publication productivity of physicians during and after finishing their medical doctorate. We conducted a PubMed search for physicians having received their doctoral degree at Ludwig-Maxmilians-University Munich Faculty of Medicine between 2011 and 2013 (N = 924) and identified the appropriate impact factor (IF) for each journal the participants had published in. Gender, age, final grade of the doctorate, participation in a structured doctoral study program and joint publication activities between graduate and academic supervisor were defined as factors. For analyses we used nonparametric procedures. Men show significantly more publications than women. Before their doctoral graduation men publish 1.98 (SD ± 3.64) articles on average, women 1.15 (±2.67) (p < 0.0001, d = 0.27). After completion of the doctorate (up to 06/2015), 40 % of men still publish, while only 24.3 % of women (p < 0.0001, φ = 0.17) continue to publish. No differences were found concerning the value of IFs. Similar results were found regarding the variable ‘participation in a structured doctoral study program’. Until doctoral graduation, program participants publish 2.82 (±5.41) articles, whereas participants doing their doctorate individually only publish 1.39 (±2.87) articles (p < 0.0001, d = 0.46). These differences persist in publication activities after graduation (45.5 vs. 29.7 %, p = 0.008, φ = 0.09). A structured doctorate seems to have positive influence on IFs (4.33 ± 2.91 vs. 3.37 ± 2.82, p = 0.006, d = 0.34). Further significant results concern the variables ‘final grade’ and ‘age’: An early doctoral graduation and an excellent or very good grade for the doctoral thesis positively influence publication productivity. Finally, joint publication activities between the graduate and his/her academic supervisor result in significantly higher IFs (3.64 ± 3.03 vs. 2.84 ± 2.25, p = 0.007, d = 0.28). The study’s results support the assumption about women’s underrepresentation in science as well as the relevance of structured doctoral study programs for preparing and recruiting young academics in medicine for scientific careers. Promoting women and further development of structured doctoral study programs are highly recommended.

Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results). METHODS: The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables). RESULTS: A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).

Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals

The purpose of this study was to search the orthodontic literature and determine the frequency of reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) in orthodontic journals with an impact factor. The six latest issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Angle Orthodontist were hand searched and the reporting of CIs, P values, and implementation of univariate or multivariate statistical analyses were recorded. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type/design as cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and clinical trials, and according to the subject of the study as growth/genetics, behaviour/psychology, diagnosis/treatment, and biomaterials/biomechanics. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics followed by univariate examination of statistical associations, logistic regression, and multivariate modelling. CI reporting was very limited and was recorded in only 6 per cent of the included published studies. CI reporting was independent of journal, study area, and design. Studies that used multivariate statistical analyses had a higher probability of reporting CIs compared with those using univariate statistical analyses. Misunderstanding of the use of P values and CIs may have important implications in implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES The main objective was to assess the credibility of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in oral health systematic reviews on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and elsewhere. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic Reviews or meta-analyses (January 2008-December 2013) from 14 high impact general dental and specialty dental journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened for meta-analyses. Data was collected at the systematic review, meta-analysis and trial level. Two reviewers applied and agreed on the GRADE rating for the selected meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 510 systematic reviews initially identified 91 reviews (41 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was high in 2% and moderate in 18% of the included meta-analyses with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, journal impact factor or year of publication. The most common domains prompting downgrading of the evidence were study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision (risk of play of chance). CONCLUSION The quality of the evidence in oral health assessed using GRADE is predominantly low or very low suggesting a pressing need for more randomised clinical trials and other studies of higher quality in order to inform clinical decisions thereby reducing the risk of instituting potentially ineffective and/or harmful therapies.

Moral Opinion Polarization and the Erosion of Trust

Since Puntam's seminal work on declining levels of social capital, the question of how social trust is formed has reached unprecedented heights of critical enquiry. While most of the current research concentrates on ethnic diversity and income inequality as the main influences driving down generalized trust, we focus on opinion polarization as another potential impact factor on trust. In more detail, we investigate the extent to which polarization over morally charged issues such as homsexuality, abortion and euthanasia affects individuals' likelihood to trust others. We hypothesize that moral issues have a natural tendency to divide societies' opinions into opposing poles and, thus, to challenge social cohesion in modern civil societies. Based on hierarchical analyses of the fifth wave of the World Values Survey (WVS) — comprising a sample of 39 countries — our results reveal that individuals living in countries characterized by more opinion polarization tend to have less trust in other people.

Phenotype-genotype correlation in eight Polish patients with inherited Factor XIII deficiency: identification of three novel mutations

Inherited factor XIII (FXIII) deficiency is known as one of the most rare blood coagulation disorder in humans. In the present study, phenotype and genotype of eight FXIII deficient Polish patients from five unrelated families were compared. The patients presented with a severe phenotype demonstrated by a high incidence of intracerebral haemorrhages (seven of eight patients), haemarthrosis (six patients) and bleeding due to trauma (five patients). Introduction of regular substitution with FXIII concentrate prevented spontaneous bleeding in seven patients. In all patients, mutations within the F13A gene have been identified revealing four missense mutations (Arg77Cys, Arg260Cys, Ala378Pro, Gly420Ser), one nonsense mutation (Arg661X), one splice site mutation (IVS5-1 G>A) and one small deletion (c.499-512del). One homozygous large deletion involving exon 15 was detected by failure of PCR product. The corresponding mutations resulted in severely reduced FXIII activity and FXIII A-subunit antigen concentration, while FXIII B-subunit antigen remained normal or mildly decreased. Structural analysis demonstrated that the novel Ala378Pro mutation may cause a disruption of the FXIII catalytic triad leading to a non-functional protein which presumably undergoes premature degradation. In conclusion, the severe phenotype with high incidence of intracranial bleeding and haemarthrosis was in accordance with laboratory findings on FXIII and with severe molecular defects of the F13A gene.

[Mitochondrial dysfunction during sepsis, impact and possible regulating role of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha]

There is a direct correlation between the development of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and the elevated mortality associated with sepsis. The mechanisms responsible for MODS development are being studied, however, the main efforts regarding MODS evaluation have focused on oxygen delivery optimization and on the modulation of the characteristic inflammatory cascade of sepsis, all with negative results. Recent studies have shown that there is development of tissue acidosis, even when there are normal oxygen conditions and limited presence of tissue cellular necrosis or apoptosis, which would indicate that cellular energetic dysfunction may be a central element in MODS pathogenesis. Mitochondrias are the main source of cellular energy, central regulators of cell death and the main source for reactive oxygen species. Several mechanisms contribute to mitochondrial dysfunction during sepsis, that is blockage of pyruvate entry into the Krebs cycle, oxidative phosphorylation substrate use in other enzymatic complexes, enzymatic complex inhibition and membrane damage mediated by oxidative stress, and reduction in mitochondrial content. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha (HIF-1alpha) is a nuclear transcription factor with a central role in the regulation of cellular oxygen homeostasis. Its induction under hypoxic conditions is associated to the expression of hundreds of genes that coordinate the optimization of cellular oxygen delivery and the cellular energy metabolism. HIF-1alpha can also be stabilized under normoxic condition during inflammation and this activation seems to be associated with a prominent pro-inflammatory profile, with lymphocytes dysfunction, and to a reduction in cellular oxygen consumption. Further studies should establish a role for HIF-1alpha as a therapeutic target.

Human NR5A1/SF-1 mutations show decreased activity on BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor), an important regulator of energy balance: testing impact of novel SF-1 mutations beyond steroidogenesis

CONTEXT Human NR5A1/SF-1 mutations cause 46,XY disorder of sex development (DSD) with broad phenotypic variability, and rarely cause adrenal insufficiency although SF-1 is an important transcription factor for many genes involved in steroidogenesis. In addition, the Sf-1 knockout mouse develops obesity with age. Obesity might be mediated through Sf-1 regulating activity of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), an important regulator of energy balance in the ventromedial hypothalamus. OBJECTIVE To characterize novel SF-1 gene variants in 4 families, clinical, genetic and functional studies were performed with respect to steroidogenesis and energy balance. PATIENTS 5 patients with 46,XY DSD were found to harbor NR5A1/SF-1 mutations including 2 novel variations. One patient harboring a novel mutation also suffered from adrenal insufficiency. METHODS SF-1 mutations were studied in cell systems (HEK293, JEG3) for impact on transcription of genes involved in steroidogenesis (CYP11A1, CYP17A1, HSD3B2) and in energy balance (BDNF). BDNF regulation by SF-1 was studied by promoter assays (JEG3). RESULTS Two novel NR5A1/SF-1 mutations (Glu7Stop, His408Profs*159) were confirmed. Glu7Stop is the 4th reported SF-1 mutation causing DSD and adrenal insufficiency. In vitro studies revealed that transcription of the BDNF gene is regulated by SF-1, and that mutant SF-1 decreased BDNF promoter activation (similar to steroid enzyme promoters). However, clinical data from 16 subjects carrying SF-1 mutations showed normal birth weight and BMI. CONCLUSIONS Glu7Stop and His408Profs*159 are novel SF-1 mutations identified in patients with 46,XY DSD and adrenal insufficiency (Glu7Stop). In vitro, SF-1 mutations affect not only steroidogenesis but also transcription of BDNF which is involved in energy balance. However, in contrast to mice, consequences on weight were not found in humans with SF-1 mutations.