ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2015
[Reading behavior and preferences regarding subscriptions to scientific journals : Results of a survey of members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- TheJournal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- [Highest level of clinical competence for endovascular interventions].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of surgical literature is to publish the latest study results and to provide continuing medical education to readers. For optimal allocation of resources, institutional subscribers, professional societies and scientific publishers require structured data on reading and subscription preferences of potential readers of surgical literature.
objectivesTo obtain representative data on the preferences of German general and visceral surgeons regarding reading of and subscription to scientific journals. MATERIAL AND
methodsAll members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Questions were asked on the affiliation and position of the member, individual journal subscriptions, institutional access to scientific journals, preferences regarding electronic or print articles and special subscriptions for society members. Answers were descriptively analyzed.
resultsA total of 630 out of 4091 (15 %) members participated in the survey and 73 % of the respondents had at least 1 individual subscription to a scientific journal. The most frequently subscribed journal was Der Chirurg (47 % of respondents). The institutional access to journals was deemed insufficient by 48 % of respondents, predominantly in primary care hospitals and outpatient clinics. Almost half of the respondents gave sufficient importance to reading printed versions of articles for which they would pay extra fees. A group subscription for society members was perceived as advantageous as long as no relevant extra costs were incurred.
conclusionThis structured survey among members of the DGAV provides data on preferences regarding reading of and subscription to scientific journals. Individual subscriptions to journals are still common, possibly due to suboptimal institutional access particularly at smaller non-academic institutions. In an age of online publications it seems surprising that many respondents place a high value on printed versions. The results are relevant for potential institutional subscribers, professional societies and scientific publishers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26464346What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.