An analysis of publications on invasive macrophytes in aquatic ecosystems

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Library and IT Staff Presentations and Publications: Spring 2012

Library and IT Staff presented and published many innovative works of scholarship in the past year.

Evaluating Faculty Publications in Accounting Ph.D. Programs: The Author Affiliation Index as an Alternative

We propose a new model, the Author Affiliation Index (AAI), for examining journal quality, explain how the AAI is calculated, and report the resulting scores for 35 accounting and accounting-related journals. Next, we compare AAI journal rankings with those from other published studies and examine the correlations between them to show how the AAI can be used to evaluate relatively new journals, such as Accounting and the Public Interest, that are not included in extant ranking lists. By explaining its flexibility, we demonstrate that the AAI model can serve as a valuable tool for measuring journal quality and for meeting AACSB accreditation requirements for faculty groups as well as individual faculty. The AAI is based on the principle that as the percentage of authors in a journal who are accounting faculty at doctoral-granting institutions increases, the perceived value of that journal in terms of quality to Ph.D.-granting accounting programs also increases. Although our illustrations focus on the construction of this measure for use by Ph.D.-granting institutions, we describe how it can be adapted for use by other faculty groups.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.