Post on 03-Jan-2016
Relevance of Online JournalServices – Stakeholders’ Opinion
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
ALMEIDA, Mariana | CARVALHO, Fernando | COELHO, Maria | GOMES, Ana | LOPES, Manuel | MACHADO, Maria | MENDONÇA, Carlos | MOREIRA, Flávia | PALMA, Isabel| PINHEIRO, Ana | SALGADO, Ana | SILVA, António | TELES, João
Introdução à Medicina II
Adviser: RODRIGUES, Pedro Pereira
15th Class 21 de Maio de 2012
SUMMARY
Introduction Motivations Aims
MethodologyResultsDiscussion
Conclusion References 2
INTRODUCTION
3
Health Sciences
TechnologyScientific Journals
INTRODUCTION
AIMS
MOTIVATIONS
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
4
HEALTH SCIENCIES
The field where up-to-date information is
absolutly needed [1]
FONTE: http://www.cie.uci.edu/academics/healthsci.html
INTRODUCTION
AIMS
MOTIVATIONS
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
5
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
The quickest way of putting knowledge available
to everyone, through scientific papers [3]
INTRODUCTION
AIMS
MOTIVATIONS
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
6
TECHNOLOGY
New capabilityes and challenges in accessing
scientific medical literature [2]
INTRODUCTION
AIMS
MOTIVATIONS
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
But, as we all know, the article approval is a
long complex process
7
Editor’s letter Peer review
Editor final approvalPUBLICATION
INTRODUCTION
AIMS
MOTIVATIONS
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
RESEARCH QUESTION
8
Are online scientific journal services adequate to the stakeholders’ needs?
MOTIVATIONS
The majority of scientific journals has a “layout closed” for
authors and readers.
Public part of scientific journals is complex and non-
intuitive;
Little contact between media and scientific journal;
Lack of spaces for commenting, sharing opinions and
sharing scientific knowledge;
Lack of spaces for discussion (forums or chats);
9
MOTIVATIONS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
MOTIVATIONS
10
INNOVATION
Have a positive contribute to the scientific research
done in FMUP
MOTIVATIONS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
AIMS
•Understand what services are the most adequate in online scientific journals on stakeholders’ opinion
General aim
•Gather and compare stakeholder’s opinions regarding online scientific journals’ services•Describe quality of journal services•Describe the most valued journal services
Specific aims
11
METHODOLOGY
12
Study design
Exploratory and transverse study
Quantitative method of data analysis
Sample
Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria stakeholders were selected
Readers
Editors Media
Research units
ReviewersAuthors
Medicine and Dentistry Faculties
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
METHODOLOGY – Contacts’ collection
13
Considering we collected authors’, reviewers’ and editors’
contacts from scientific journals, these last ones must respect
the inclusion criteria.
Scientific Journals
Registered in ISI Web
of Knowledge
General and internal medicine
Written in 2010
Overall
153 Scientific Journals
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
METHODOLOGY – Inclusion Criteria
14
Authors
Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least)
Regular contact with scientific journals
To have 2 published indexed international publications in
the last year
Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least)
Regular contact with scientific journals
Last revision of a scientific article not more than 1 year
2 revisions per year
Reviewers
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
METHODOLOGY – Inclusion Criteria
15
Readers
Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least)
Regular contact with scientific journals
Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least)
Regular contact with scientific journals
Last edited publication not more than 1 year
Portuguese origin
Web page on the internet
Editors
Media
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
METHODOLOGY – Inclusion Criteria
16
Research Units
Portuguese origin
Web page on the internet
Daily contact with scientific journals
Portuguese origin
Web page on the internet
The existence of, at least, one group focusing on
investigation
Medicine and Dentistry Faculties
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
METHODOLOGY
17
Exclusion Criteria
The lack of e-mail contact is an exclusion factor for
authors, readers, reviewers and editors.
The lack of telephone contact is an exclusion factor for
media, Medicine and Dentistry faculties and research units.
The information about the purpose of this study will
be provided to all the intervenient.
Their participation is volunteer.
All collected data will be anonymous and the answers
will be strictly confidential.
Ethical Aspects
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
18
FLOWCHART
Overall: 79 answers
METHODOLOGY
19
Data collection
Data analysis
For all this stakeholders it was provided a
questionnaire (for authors, reviewers, readers and editors)
or an interview (for media, research units and Medicine
and Dentistry faculties).
Descriptive and parametric statistics (using IBM SPSS
Statistics – 20th version).
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Questionnaire
20
Part I
Part II
Part III
Characterization of the stakeholder
Questions about online scientific journals
Personal data
Interview
Part I Close answers about online scientific journals
Part II Open answers about online scientific journals
METHODOLOGY
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
RESULTS
21
Help on the subscription (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Readers n=53 29 (55%) 24 (45%)0,081b
Editors n=8 7 (88%) 1 (12%)
Table 1: Relevance of the help on the subscription process.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
Discussion chat (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Editors n=8 7 (88%) 1 (12%)0,088b
Institutions n=9 4 (44%) 5 (56%)Readers n=54 41 (76%) 13 (24%)
0,066b
Instituitions n=9 4 (44%) 5 (56%)
Table 2: Relevance of the discussion chat.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
RESULTS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
RESULTS
22
Subscription (n(%)) P valueSuficient or less Good or very goodReaders n=49 21 (43%) 28 (57%) 0,095b
Instituitions n=8 6 (75%) 2 (25%)
Table 3: Quality of subscription.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
Subscription (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Authors n=20 12 (60%) 8 (40%)0,078a
Non authors n=34 12 (35%) 22 (65%)Reviwers n=15 10 (67%) 5 (33%)
0,042a *
Non reviwers n=39 14 (36%) 25 (64%)
Table 4: Relevance of subscription.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
RESULTS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
DISCUSSION
CONSLUSION
REFERENCES
RESULTS
23
Help for readers (n(%)) P valueRelevant or less High relevance or moreAuthors n=21 8 (38%) 13 (62%) 0,020b *
Non authors n=36 4 (11%) 32 (89%)Reviwers n=16 7 (44%) 9 (56%) 0,014b *
Non reviwers n=41 5 (12%) 36 (88%)
Table 5: Relevance of the help for readers.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
Connection to Social Network (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Reviwers n=15 13 (87%) 2 (12%)0,037a *
Non reviwers n=39 22 (56%) 17 (44%)
Table 6: Relevance of connection to social network.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. *p<0,05
RESULTS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
RESULTS
24
Help for authors (n(%)) P valueRelevant or less High relevance or moreReviwers n=15 8 (53%) 7 (47%) 0,083a
Non reviwers n=39 11 (28%) 28 (72%)
Table 7: Relevance of the help for authors.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
RESULTS
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
DISCUSSION
25
DISCUSSION
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Subscription (n(%)) P valueRelevant or less High relevance or moreAuthors n=20 12 (60%) 8 (40%) 0,078a
Non authors n=34 12 (35%) 22 (65%)Reviwers n=15 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 0,042a *
Non reviwers n=39 14 (36%) 25 (64%)
Table 4: Relevance of subscription.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
Either authors or reviewers when compared with non-authors and
non-reviewers, respectively, they do not give much importance to
subscription. Usually these stakeholders are associated to institutions
and so they have no necessity to use this service so frequently, that is
why they consider it relevant or less on the contrary of institutions.
DISCUSSION
26
DISCUSSION
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Non-authors and non-reviewers give more relevance to this service
comparing them to authors and reviewers because these are the
groups where readers are included. So, as expected, the differences are
statistically significant, and non-authors and non-reviewers consider
this service very relevant probably due to their lack of experience, what
brings them difficulties on researching.
Help for readers (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Authors n=21 8 (38%) 13 (62%)0,020b *
Non authors n=36 4 (11%) 32 (89%)Reviwers n=16 7 (44%) 9 (56%)
0,014b *
Non reviwers n=41 5 (12%) 36 (88%)
Table 5: Relevance of the help for readers.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05
DISCUSSION
27
DISCUSSION
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The connection to social networks does not call the attention
among reviewers, maybe because of what they know about the usage
of this service. The service is not frequent on online scientific journals,
and does not develop the discussion between different stakeholders:
they just make comments, they do not truly discuss.
Connection to Social Network (n(%))
P valueRelevant or less High relevance or more
Reviwers n=15 13 (87%) 2 (12%)0,037a *
Non reviwers n=39 22 (56%) 17 (44%)
Table 6: Relevance of connection to social network.a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. *p<0,05
CONCLUSION
28
CONCLUSION
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
We can understand that the services provided by online
scientific journals are capable of satisfying the necessities of
stakeholders.
One of the most important services is the help for
readers.
Institutions consider important to be up-dated about the
statistics of the most consulted journals so that they can
access the most reputable scientific journals.
CONCLUSION
Stakeholders share different opinions about the services
related to subscription, probably because some of them are
associated to institutions and do not use it so frequently.
Surprisingly, and on the contrary of we expected,
stakeholders who were questioned about, do not see any
relevance on the existence of a discussion chat or a social
network.
29
CONCLUSION
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
REFERENCES
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
[1] Lundh, A., et al., Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study. PLoS Med, 2010. 7(10): p. e1000354.
[2] Tao, D., et al., Transition from in Library Use of Resources to Outside Library Use: The impact of the Internet on Information Seeking Behavior of Medical Students and Faculty. AMIA Annu Symp Proc., 2003: p. 1027.
[3] Castro, R.C.F., Impacto da Internet no fluxo da comunicação científica em saúde. Revista de Saúde Pública, 2006. 40: p. 57-63.
30
REFERENCES
AIMS
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
METODOLOGY
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONLUSION
31
ANY QUESTION
32
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !