Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders’ Opinion DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ALMEIDA, Mariana | CARVALHO, Fernando | COELHO,

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



Last revision of a scientific article not more than 1 year

2 revisions per year

Reviewers

METHODOLOGY

AIMS

INTRODUCTION

MOTIVATIONS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES


15

Readers





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


16

Research Units

Portuguese origin


Daily contact with scientific journals

Portuguese origin


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(%))


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(%))


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(%))


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(%))


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(%))


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 !

Documents

Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders’ Opinion DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ALMEIDA, Mariana | CARVALHO, Fernando | COELHO,