Sandra R.

Bai, PharmD
09/26/2016

Objectives
1. Describe different avenues for the publication of primary
medical literature
2. Understand the purpose and steps involved in the peerreview process
3. Explain the various influences that underscore the
importance of critical literature evaluation skills for all
pharmacists

Primary Literature
Original works of new knowledge
Experimental Studies
Observational Studies
Descriptive Reports

Publication of Primary Literature

Abstract

Poster Presentation
Podium Presentation
Peer-reviewed medical journal

Peer Review Process

Purpose
Ensure good quality research is published
Improve the quality of research published
Methods
Independent experts in their field review manuscript
submissions and determine the validity, significance,
and originality of submissions
Understanding the Publication Process. Elsevier. Available at
http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/181250/author_info_pack_2014_A4_WEB_Final.pdf. Accessed September 22,
2016.

Roles in Publishing
Scholars
Editors and Peer Reviewers
Publishers
Subscribers
Understanding the Publication Process. Elsevier. Available at
http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/181250/author_info_pack_2014_A4_WEB_Final.pdf. Accessed September 22,
2016.

Types of Peer Review

Single-Blind: Reviewers identity is hidden from the author
Double-Blind: Both reviewer and author are blinded
Open: Reviewer and author are known to each other

Understanding the Publication Process. Elsevier. Available at

http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/Brochure_UPP_April2015.pdf
. Accessed September 26, 2016.

The Role of Referees

Evaluate scientific content for value and originality
Check for adherence to the journals specific guidelines

Consider methodology and ethics

Data is referenced appropriately
Recommend changes that can be made
Understanding the Publication Process. Elsevier. Available at
http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/Brochure_UPP_April2015.pdf
Accessed September 26, 2016.

The Role of Referees

Make final recommendation to the journal editor to:

Accept
Accept with revisions
Reject
Understanding the Publication Process. Elsevier. Available at
http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/Brochure_UPP_April2015.pdf.
Accessed September 26, 2016.

Critical Literature Evaluation

The process of reading and evaluating primary
literature to arrive at your own conclusion
Are the results believable?
Are the results applicable to your practice?
Does the paper really support its claims
The ultimate interpretation rests with the reader

Why is it important?
Differing interpretation
Clinical decisions based on primary literature
Therapeutic dilemmas
Conflicting information available
Drug-policy decisions
Interpreting information presented in the lay press
Serious methodology problems

Potential Reasons for Publication of

Poor Quality Research
Publish or perish dilemma
Investigators lack of knowledge
Peer reviewers lack of knowledge
Preliminary results published

Scientific Fraud

Publication Influences
Hot Topics

Politics
Pharmaceutical Industry
Funding of Studies
Ghost Writers
Promotional Activities

Ghostwriter
A professional writer who is paid to write
books, articles, stories, reports, or other
content which are officially credited to
another person

Publication Cycle

Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report. STM, 2012.

Evolution of Electronic Publication

Internet utilization
How has it changed delivery of information?
How is publication evolving?
Traditional publishers/journals
Multimedia, electronic content
Novel journals
Open-access, online-only
Increased use of digital channels
Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report 2012.
Liesegang TJ. Am J Ophthalmol 2013.

Digital Advances in Publishing

Audio commentary/interviews
Interactive cases/gamification
Social media (i.e. Twitter, Pinterest)
YouTube & videos
Graphical/visual abstracts
Tablet applications
Video abstracts

Open Access
Free available original research
Various approaches
Gold (full and hybrid)
Delayed
Green (self-archiving)

Ware M. The STM report 2012.

Liesegang TJ. Am J Ophthalmol 2013.

Open Access - Drivers

Research funding policies
Increased number of OA journals
Creation of megajournals (e.g. PLOS ONE)
Soundness not significance
Low cost, rapid publication, broad scope

Ware M. The STM report 2012.

Liesegang TJ. Am J Ophthalmol 2013.

Advantages
Quicker discovery
Greater access to information
Able to use for future studies
Public access
Research funded by taxes
Increased scholarly activity
Students and academia have greater access
Globalization of research
Potential to lower cost of publication

PLoS. Open Access, Available at: http://www.plos.org/op. Accessed on February 13, 2014.
Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report 2012.

Disadvantages
Common standards not defined
Differences may lead to lower quality of work being published
Potential for fraud or scams
Researchers need to be vigilant
Sustainability of movement
Pros and cons for various methods
Change in business models
Publishers impacted greatly
Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report 2012.
Butler D. Sham journals scam authors. Nature 2013.