The Experts below are selected from a list of 146832 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fiona Stevenson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Publishing qualitative Research in medical journals
British Journal of General Practice, 2017Co-Authors: Kalwant Sidhu, Roger Jones, Fiona StevensonAbstract:Qualitative Research makes an important contribution to Research in the medical sciences. It has a particular role in providing understanding with respect to decisions and behaviours of patients and professionals, in exploring factors affecting the implementation of new interventions, and in developing theory in fields such as illness behaviour, clinical decision making, illness prevention, and health promotion. Qualitative Research articles account for almost a quarter of submissions to the BJGP , with a similar acceptance rate for publication. About a quarter of the 40 most highly cited articles published in the BJGP in recent years employ qualitative methods. Although guidance on the conduct and reporting of qualitative studies has generally lagged behind those for quantitative Research, guidance is now available. It includes recommendations such as COREQ,1 a set of reporting criteria making up a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group-based Research, and the more recently published Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist.2 Both of these instruments aim to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative Research and are designed not only to help authors, but also to support editors and reviewers in evaluating manuscripts for publication and readers in critically appraising qualitative studies. However these recommendations do not tackle the problems of limited word counts and traditional reporting formats required by peer-reviewed journals in medicine; indeed, in many ways they exacerbate the problem by demanding more information. However, there is another more fundamental problem in Publishing Research that employs qualitative methods. This was brought into sharp relief in a recent exchange of correspondence in the BMJ that highlighted a clear policy to exclude qualitative Research due to the view that results are largely exploratory and better suited to more ‘specialist’ journals, potentially limiting the reach of Research using qualitative methodology.3,4 …
David L Schriger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is national resident matching program rank predictive of resident performance or post graduation achievement 10 years at one emergency medicine residency
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Jessica Wall, Scott R Votey, Thomas Solomon, David L SchrigerAbstract:Author(s): Wall, Jessica; Votey, Scott R.; Solomon, Thomas; Schriger, David L. | Abstract: Introduction: Each year residency programs expend considerable effort ranking applicants for the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP). We explored the relationship between residents’ NRMP rank list position as generated at our institution and their performance in residency and post-graduation to determine whether such efforts are justified.Methods: Faculty who were present for the 10 consecutive study years at an allopathic emergency medicine residency retrospectively evaluated residents on their overall performance, medical knowledge, and interpersonal skills. Residency graduates were surveyed regarding their current position, hours of clinical practice, academic, teaching and leadership roles, and publications. We compared match position to performance using graphical techniques as the primary form of analysis.Results: Ten faculty evaluated the 107 residents who graduated from the program during these 10 years by class year. Eighty-four residents responded to the survey. In general, we found little correlation between NRMP rank and faculty rank of resident performance. There was also little correlation between position in the NRMP rank list and the probability of having an academic career, Publishing Research, or having a teaching or leadership role.Conclusion: We found that the position on our NRMP rank list was of little value in predicting which residents would do best in residency or take on academic or leadership roles once graduated. Residencies should evaluate the processes they use to generate their rank list to determine whether the ranking process is sufficiently predictive to warrant the effort expended.
Bagher Larijani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
scientometric analyzing the output of Researchers and organizations on covid 19 for better conducting the scientific efforts with a glance to endocrinology
Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2021Co-Authors: Rasha Atlasi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Aboozar Ramezani, Ozra Tabatabaeimalazy, Bagher LarijaniAbstract:As COVID-19 spreads rapidly and could affect the people and also lead to their death, especially individuals with underlying diseases, such as diabetes, the Research community is also active in Publishing novel Research about it. Analyzing scientific outputs in this topic can represent an overview of publications. For this purpose, this study was conducted to determine status of Publishing Research works related to COVID-19 and analyzing the all documents published and indexed in Web of Science database and illustrate the co-occurrence and co-authority of hot papers in this documents. Our search strategy was based on using the related key terms including COVID-19, coronavirus, SARS2, etc., to find out all the published scientific works related to coronavirus disease indexed in web of science (WoS) in 2020. We then extracted the all hot papers and especially hot papers in endocrinology category and analyzed them. The data saved and imported in VOSviewer and ScientoPy programs for analysis and illustration of our data. We have shown our analysis in the tables, figures and maps. Totally, 56,402 records and 309 hot papers were retrieved. 3 of these hot papers were in endocrinology category. The most common type of publication was original papers followed by editorial papers in the second rank. The country with the most published documents was the USA followed by China. The journals of “British Medical Journal” and “Journal of Medical Virology” were ranked as the first and second sources, respectively. The “Harvard University” was the top organization with high proportion of scientific publications and “the Lancet” was the top-ranked journal that published highly-cited papers. The literature on COVID-19 is increasing with a high and fast growth. In this regard, there is a need to evaluate these publications once in a while and their results should be published to use this information for more effective management of future Research works with emphasizes on the gaps of Researches and more citable documents and allocation of budgets on more needed Research and don’t carry out the duplicates Research. This would be helpful for prevention, control, and treatment of COVID-19 that is now among the most common topics in the world.
Barry J Babin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
to what is the review process relevant what s right and what s wrong with peer review for academic business journals
European Business Review, 2018Co-Authors: Barry J Babin, Julie Guidry MoulardAbstract:The purpose of this paper is to consider various strengths and weaknesses of the academic review process with an emphasis on the effect the process has on the relevance of business journals, particularly in the marketing literature.,The authors not only highlight some of the literature addressing the review process but also present insight and opinion largely based on decades of experience editing, reviewing, writing and Publishing.,Reviewers can help develop Research papers, but reviewers remain gatekeepers who, theoretically, protect journals from Publishing Research that would diminish the truthful body of knowledge within a field. However, many inefficiencies, some of which involve volition, allow one to question whether the review process as we know it best accomplishes that purpose.,Recognizing that reviewers affect journal prestige, the paper concludes with a number of ideas for improving the gate-keeping and developmental functions for academic articles.,Society should extract value from what appears in publicly circulated, academic, refereed journals. However, to the extent that the publication process interferes with objective dissemination of knowledge, that value is diminished and perhaps even absent.,The paper intends to stimulate frank conversation about the Academy’s refereed publication process and factors that tend to interfere with its function.
-
Publishing Research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling
The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 2008Co-Authors: Barry J Babin, Joseph F Hair, James S BolesAbstract:This paper takes an objective look at how papers using structural equation models are received in the review process of academic marketing Research journals. The focus is examining whether or not papers with structural equation modeling (SEM) applications enjoy an advantage in the review process and what the nature of such an advantage may be. A sample of submission records from a top marketing Research journal is used to examine this issue. Results suggest that papers with SEM applications enjoy a modest advantage in the review process but that this difference is partially due to the fact that papers with SEM applications are rated more highly on multiple paper characteristics. For example, authors using SEM tend to have their papers rated more highly than others on the theoretical and conceptual development attribute. Thus, learning and applying SEM may have advantages not directly related to the application of the statistical approach.
Kalwant Sidhu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Publishing qualitative Research in medical journals
British Journal of General Practice, 2017Co-Authors: Kalwant Sidhu, Roger Jones, Fiona StevensonAbstract:Qualitative Research makes an important contribution to Research in the medical sciences. It has a particular role in providing understanding with respect to decisions and behaviours of patients and professionals, in exploring factors affecting the implementation of new interventions, and in developing theory in fields such as illness behaviour, clinical decision making, illness prevention, and health promotion. Qualitative Research articles account for almost a quarter of submissions to the BJGP , with a similar acceptance rate for publication. About a quarter of the 40 most highly cited articles published in the BJGP in recent years employ qualitative methods. Although guidance on the conduct and reporting of qualitative studies has generally lagged behind those for quantitative Research, guidance is now available. It includes recommendations such as COREQ,1 a set of reporting criteria making up a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group-based Research, and the more recently published Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist.2 Both of these instruments aim to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative Research and are designed not only to help authors, but also to support editors and reviewers in evaluating manuscripts for publication and readers in critically appraising qualitative studies. However these recommendations do not tackle the problems of limited word counts and traditional reporting formats required by peer-reviewed journals in medicine; indeed, in many ways they exacerbate the problem by demanding more information. However, there is another more fundamental problem in Publishing Research that employs qualitative methods. This was brought into sharp relief in a recent exchange of correspondence in the BMJ that highlighted a clear policy to exclude qualitative Research due to the view that results are largely exploratory and better suited to more ‘specialist’ journals, potentially limiting the reach of Research using qualitative methodology.3,4 …
