ArticlePloS one2021
Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2024Article
- Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Scopus Indexing Delays of Articles Published in Major Pharmacy Practice Journals.Innovations in pharmacy · 2024Article
- [Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: the Granada Statements.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Bibliometric Properties of Placebo Literature From the JIPS Database: A Descriptive Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies.
objectiveTo evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed.
methodsAll the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between 'submission date' and 'acceptance date'), lead lag (days between 'acceptance date' and 'online publication date'), and indexing lag (days between 'online publication date' and 'Entry date'). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups.
resultsThe 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57-173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56-155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen's d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6-35) and 23 days (IQR 9-45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2-46) and 4 days (IQR 2-12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups.
conclusionsPublication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.