Poster Presentations 2018
|Location & Accommodation
||Exhibitors & Sponsors
The conference will feature a series of poster presentations addressing all aspects of science editing and publishing, as well as topics on the theme of the conference.
Poster abstract submission is now officially closed. We have had a good response with 12 posters accepted. Abstracts will be added to this page as they are completed.
Late applications could be considered: authors should contact the Conference Secretary as soon as possible (firstname.lastname@example.org).
All those who have submitted an abstract should have heard from the Programme Committee by now: please contact the Conference Secretary if you have not.
Nursing faculties’ knowledge on and attitude towards research ethics in the Republic of Korea
Geum Hee Jeong & Sun Huh (Hallym University, Republic of Korea)
We aimed to analyze the nursing faculties’ knowledge on and attitude towards research ethics in the Republic of Korea. Specifically, participants’ knowledge on and attitude towards research ethics according to both characteristics of participants and institution’s environment for research ethics was identified; furthermore, need of training on the topics of research ethics was identified. Survey was done from April 24, 2017 to July 23, 2017. Participants were 210 nursing professors from 57 Universities in Korea. Survey questionnaire consisted of follows: characteristics of participants, knowledge, attitude, research ethics environment at a working university, and need of training. Participants showed lower difficulty index on conflict of interest (0.66), copyright (0.65), and plagiarism & duplicate publication (0.17) than other six items. Of 10 items on attitudes towards research ethics, use of plagiarism checking program (4.03/5.0) and review of inner circle’s manuscript (4.05/5.0) marked the lowest records. Correlation between knowledge on and attitude toward research ethics was low (r=0.264, P=0.01). Participants of higher ranking position, higher academic degree, and with experience of getting Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval showed better knowledge and attitudes. Getting IRB approval, writing informed consent, and obtaining informed consent for studies on children and pregnant women were the needs with priority. More intensive training program for nursing faculty is required on specific topics such as conflict of interest, copyright, and plagiarism, duplicate publication, IRB, and informed consent. Furthermore, all institutes should provide the plagiarism checking program to faculties.
A quality score for the assessment of non-systematic review articles
Christopher Baethge (Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Germany)
Stephan Mertens (Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Germany)
Sandy Goldbeck-Wood (Cambridge University Hospitals, UK)
Non-systematic (narrative) reviews are popular among readers and journal editors. However, narrative reviews differ considerably with regard to quality and scientific rigour. This leads a team of three journal editors to develop a quality score for the assessment of non-systematic review articles (SANRA). Items are rated from 0 (low standard) to 2 (high standard). The items were (1) justification of the article’s importance for the readership, (2) statement of concrete aims or formulation of questions, (3) description of the literature search, (4) referencing, (5) scientific reasoning, (6) appropriate presentation of data, and (7) the manuscript’s writing and accessibility. For all items, we developed recommendations and examples to guide users in applying the instrument. After two pretests, a revised scale was tested in 30 consecutive non-systematic reviews submitted to Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal of the German Medical Association. The mean sum score across all 30 manuscripts was 6.0 out of 12 possible points. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.33 (item 3) to 0.58 (item 6), and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.68. The intra-class correlation coefficient (average measure) was 0.77 [0.57; 0.88]. SANRA’s feasibility, inter-rater reliability, homogeneity of items, and internal consistency are sufficient for a scale of six items.
Adherence to international guidelines on publication ethics among journals from Trakya University, Turkey: a comparative analysis
Haci Ali Gulec (Trakya University, Turkey)
The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which ten journals published by Trakya University in Turkey endorsed international guidelines regarding publication ethics. I recorded whether or not the journals mentioned recommendations on international ethical issues in their Instructions to Authors, Instructions to reviewers or good reporting guidelines sections on their websites. The results of this study showed that the most of the journals did not specifically endorse well-known international guidelines, with the exception of the Balkan Medical Journal. Only this journal mentioned good reporting guidelines, instructions to reviewers and an article withdrawal process. None of the journals mentioned data accessibility. There is great potential to enhance transparency of the publishing process and improve scientific ethical standards among these journals by providing institutional support and especially by training of the editorial board members.
Misrepresentation in reported author affiliations to Chilean universities in the scholarly literature: a cross-sectional pilot study
Vivienne C. Bachelet, Francisco A. Uribe, Alonso Vergara, and Rubén Díaz (Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile)
The purpose of this study is to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple affiliations who report at least one of them as belonging to a Chilean higher education institution, by determining the consistency between the reported affiliation in the article with the reported affiliation in the ORCID database. The design is an observational, cross-sectional pilot study on articles indexed in Scopus in 2016. We will retrieve all of the articles that have at least one author affiliated to a Chilean university in 2016 as registered by the Scopus database. We will include in our study any author who reports in the article author byline an affiliation to a Chilean university. Misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution. When an author reports the affiliation in ORCID, we will consider this to be a true affiliation. When the affiliation cannot be corroborated by ORCID or by a Google search of institutional websites, we will consider this to be a finding of high risk for misrepresentation of the affiliation. Results should be available by June 2018.
Assessment of scientific indicators of general medicine journals in the Balkan Region
Zafer Kocak & Necdet Sut (Trakya University Medical School, Turkey)
We evaluated the scientific indicators of general medicine journals in the Balkan region. We took being indexed in the two databases, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) and Scopus, as a marker of high impact. We measured scientific indicators between 2009 and 2016 using the Scopus and Clarivate Analytics databases. The Scientific journal ranking, self- and total cites, international collaboration, uncited and cited documents were derived from the Scopus SCImago index. The impact factor scores were taken from the Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Report. The self-cite and cited documents rates were calculated for all journals. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between some indicators.
We found that eight journals from the Balkan countries were indexed in the SCI-E and Scopus (Croat Med J, Acta Clin Croat, Balkan Med J, Turkish Med J, Hippokratia, Vojnosanit Pregl, Srp Arh Celok Lek, Bosn J Basic Med Sci). The international collaboration rate, assessed as the number of articles with international authors, was found to be positively correlated with Scientific journal ranking (r=0.770; p <0.001) and impact factor (r=0.663, p<0.001). There was no correlation between the self-cite rate and Scientific journal ranking (r=-0.081, p=0.526), or between the self-cite rate and the cited documents rate (r=-0.198, p=0.117). Among all journals, the Croatian Medical Journal had the highest mean cited documents rate (53.2%) and the highest mean impact factor (1.5) and Scientific journal ranking score (0.43). The annual change in the rate of self-cite in the past 2 years was below 15% for all the journals. The ratio of the cited-documents varied according to the journals. In the past 3 years, the journal which increased this rate the most was the Balkan Medical Journal (16.6% to 41%). International collaboration should be strengthened and be adopted as the main policy for non-mainstream Balkan journals.
Can individual back-translation with or without copyediting avoid technical plagiarism? A study with Turkish medical authors
Cem Uzun, Ozgur Gunduz, and Necdet Sut (Trakya University, Turkey)
Technical plagiarism is described as using duplicate content without quotation marks but with a citation of the original source. This unintended behaviour is common among English as a second Language (ESL) authors, but considered unacceptable. Authors are advised to write using their own words. However, paraphrasing is not easy for ESL authors. Back-translating alone or with copyediting might be a useful method to achieve acceptable paraphrasing. To test this possibility, we sent 30 medical doctors or researchers at Trakya University (Edirne, Turkey) sentences in their specialty extracted from articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. The participants translated the sentences into Turkish and 2 months later back into English. The back-translated sentences were edited for grammar, spelling and syntax errors by English native-speaking copyeditors. The editors were then asked to compare the original sentences with the back-translated and edited versions for their meaning, structure and avoidance of technical plagiarism. We used an online tool to evaluate the percent of duplicate content.
We found that back-translation resulted in 16.6% of the sentences losing their “important scientific meaning”. Although editing significantly improved “meaning” (p=0.008), “important scientific meaning” was not retained in 10.7% of the sentences. Sentence structure did not change after editing (p=0.306). We found back-translation did not result in acceptable paraphrasing in 69.0% of the sentences and the sentences had a mean of 37.9% duplicate content. After editing, these rates decreased to 36.9% (p=0.002) and 32.2% (p=0.001), respectively. Confounding factors (e.g. number of previous publications in English, academic title) did not affect the analyses. The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the editors were good. We conclude that back-translation alone does not avoid technical plagiarism. Further editing improves the meaning and decreases the rate of duplicate content. However, acceptable paraphrasing still may not be achieved.
Increasing quality of academic publishing: Lessons learned from ‘quality workshop’ and current standing of Trakya University journals
Erdem Demiroz (Trakya University, Turkey)
Trakya University, seen as a gateway between Turkey and the Balkans and the rest of Europe, organized a workshop titled “Increasing the quality of academic journals at the Trakya University” in November 2017. The goal of the workshop was to involve all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing, to review quality indicators, and to increase the quality of the academic journals. Workshop discussions covered several indicators of quality such as: (a) ensuring ethical standards, (b) increasing efficiency in reviewer selection and in blind-review processes, (c) having professionally designed policies supported by national and international publishing and editing organizations, (d) updating editorial boards to reflect international aspect of journals, (e) improving time management efficiency, editorial process and effective communication not only with authors but also reviewers, and (f) increasing accessibility and visibility of journals. This study discusses these six indicators from a general perspective, and highlights descriptive statistics related to the current standing of ten academic journals published by Trakya University. This descriptive paper indicates that there is no single recipe for all Trakya University journals to improve quality. Ensuring ethical standards and providing fair blind peer review process are two areas in which all Trakya University journals are very strong.
Evaluation of the transparency of the peer-review process at Trakya University journals
Müge Atakan (Trakya University, Turkey)
Trakya University has ten international peer-reviewed scientific journals. In this research, we analysed the transparency of the peer-review process at these journals. We used the 14-item tool of Wicherts to rate transparency of the peer-review process. One of the most important ways to provide transparency is to list the criteria used by reviewers to evaluate submissions: seven of the ten journals did not do this. The duration of the peer-review process was indicated only in four journals. All of the journals published publication ethics principles and provided detailed informations under a separate heading. However, only four journals have declared in their websites that their editorial board adheres to the principles of COPE, EASE, WAME and/or ICMJE. The research shows that Trakya University journals satisfy most of the criteria of Wicherts but there are still some deficiencies and there is still a need for improvement.
Compliance analysis of journals published by Trakya University with principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing
Kadri Kiran (Trakya University, Turkey)
The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) published the revised 3rd version of the declaration “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” for journal editors and publishers at the beginning of 2018. Trakya University provides an important contribution to academic publishing in Turkey by publishing 10 scholarly journals. In this study, we analysed the compliance of journals published by Trakya University with the 16 items of “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing”. We found that the 10 journals showed 49% compliance with the items (range 85.19% – 25.93%). The items with the highest compliance were Journal Name, Governing Body and Archiving with 90%: the item with the lowest compliance was Direct Marketing with 0%. All journals published by Trakya University are non-profit scientific journals with no publication charge for authors and they offer open access for all types of content. Thus, the journals see no need to do special marketing to authors and therefore have no direct marketing policies. Compliance with Publication ethics was only 13%, which suggests that urgent action is required to improve this.
The dynamics of scientific publication over the past decade – a brief analysis
Octavian Andronic, Dan Nicolae Păduraru, Alexandra Bolocan, and Daniel Ion (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy & University Emergency Hospital of Bucharest, Romania)
In the past 10 years, scientific publication has undergone a rapid and fundamental transformation, being affected by both technological evolution and digital systems, as well as by profound changes in the academic and scientific environments. We investigated the dynamics of the articles published over the past 10 years, depending on various parameters such as language, scientific area, geographic region, type of open access or type of article. The data used were taken from the most popular online platforms (Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct and DOAJ) from 1 January 2007- 31 December 2017 and targeted only articles (e.g. original research, editorials, reviews) not book chapters, policy documents or similar. The analysis of the data will be presented in relative mode, with the year 2007 as the reference.
Do you plan to implement a data research policy in your journal?
Remedios Melero (Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnologia de Alimentos-CSIC, Spain)
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz (SpringerNature, UK)
Funders and governmental agencies are increasingly requiring sharing of research data sharing (either freely available for anyone to access or under more restricted sharing agreements, for example on request to specific researchers). Journals can play an important role in this process by encouraging or requiring archiving of research data underlying the papers they publish. It is desirable that journals’ policies support the requirements of funding agencies and for journals to have a common approach to research data policies and in their instructions to authors. However, the needs of specific research communities and of journal editors also need to be taken into account when implementing a data sharing policy. This poster includes a set of questions that should be responded to before journals and editors make a decision on selecting and implementing a research data policy: Should journals require or encourage data sharing? Are they prepared technologically to accept research data as supplemental material or should authors deposit in a trusted data repository? Are ethical and privacy issues addressed? Will research data be peer reviewed? Other considerations when forming a research data policy include a definition of research data, where to archive data (which repositories), how to cite data, how to license data, and which data formats and standards are appropriate. These issues, and a collaboration between publishers, funding agencies, institutions, infrastructure providers and researchers, has led to the development of a research data policy framework, drafted by the Data policy standardisation and implementation interest Group of the Research Data Alliance (RDA). This policy framework will be summarized in its final draft version, if it is ready in time for the EASE Conference 2018.
Fate of manuscripts rejected by the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology between 2015 and 2017
Turgut Karlıdağ (Fırat University, Turkey)
Cem Bilgen (Ege University, Turkey)
Taner Kemal Erdağ (Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey)
This study investigated the fate of the manuscripts rejected by the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology (TAO). We identified all manuscripts rejected between 1st January 2015 and 31st December 2016. We searched with the names of the first two and the last authors and titles of the articles in Pubmed, Google Scholar and a national index, ULAKBİM Citation Index TR, to see if the articles had been published elsewhere. A total of 159 articles were submitted to the journal between the mentioned dates and 90 (56.6%) of them were rejected (average rejection time is 25.5 days). Sixty-four of these rejected articles (71.1%) were published in other journals by 31st December 2016 and the average publication time from rejection by TAO to publication elsewhere was 199.7 days (20-644 days). Only eight (8.8%) of the articles were published in journals listed above TAO in indexes. This shows the precision and success of the reviewers and editorial board of TAO in the evaluation of the submitted manuscripts.