preview

Annuals Of Rheumatic Diseases : The Literature Study

Decent Essays
Open Document

A short online survey was sent to 240 corresponding authors, but 17 were excluded from the analyses. Specifically, one corresponding author was on annual leave; 2 rejected the invitation emails, and 14 authors provided a wrong email address. Thus, the main reason for exclusion (5.8%) was the inability to reach the selected population. Half of the incorrect email addresses (n=7) were from corresponding authors who published a peer-reviewed RCT article in a respiratory journal, the second half (n=7) in rheumatology journals (Table 1). In details, 4 out of 7 corresponding authors published a paper in the European Respiratory Journal and 3 out of 7 in Annuals of Rheumatic Diseases. Then, the final samples size was 223 corresponding authors, …show more content…

Comparison of corresponding authors with and without working experience with PMWs More than half of the corresponding authors who worked with PMWs to prepare their publications came from North America (55.5%; 10/18). Just over one-third of the authors (38.8%; 7/18) were European, and only 5.5% (1/18) came from Asia-Pacific regions (Figure 4a). In contrast, nearly 65% (64.3%; 9/14) of the corresponding authors with no experience of working with PMWs during the development of their peer-reviewed publications were Europeans. Only 14.3% (2/14) came from North America, and 21.4% (3/14) from Asia-Pacific regions (Figure 4b). Overall, despite the low representative number of the corresponding authors for each geographical region, the survey demonstrated that: 1. Corresponding authors from North America had more experience of working with PMWs than authors from Europe (55.5% versus 38.8%). 2. Corresponding authors from Asia-Pacific regions were less represented than the European and American authors. Many of the Asiatic authors (21.4%) had not a PMW support during the peer-reviewed publication process. Additionally, 72.2% (13/18) of the corresponding authors with PMWs working experience were academic researchers. Only 22.2% (4/18) were clinical investigators, and just 5.5% (1/18) were pharmaceutical employees (Figure 4a). In contrast, the proportion of academic researchers and clinical

Get Access
Related
Get Access