Abstract: BMC Medicine was launched in November 2003 as an open access, open peer-reviewed general medical journal that has a broad remit to publish “outstanding and influential research in all areas of clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities”. Here, I discuss the last 15?years of epidemiological research published by BMC Medicine, with a specific focus on how this reflects changes occurring in the field of epidemiology over this period; the impact of ‘Big Data’; the reinvigoration of debates about causality; and, as we increasingly work across and with many diverse disciplines, the use of the name ‘population health science’. Reviewing all publications from the first volume to the end of 2018, I show that most BMC Medicine papers are epidemiological in nature, and the majority of them are applied epidemiology, with few methodological papers. Good research must address important translational questions that should not be driven by the increasing availability of data, but should take appropriate advantage of it. Over the next 15?years it would be good to see more publications that integrate results from several different methods, each with different sources of bias, in a triangulation framework.
Abstract: Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing them. We consider 531,889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC which are part of the PubMed Open Access collection, categorize their data availability statements according to their content and analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements have become common by now, yet statements containing a link to a repository are still just a fraction of the total. We also find that articles with these statements, in particular, can have up to 25.36% higher citation impact on average: an encouraging result for all publishers and authors who make the effort of sharing their data. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.
“That’s why we’ve created a new service, In Review. Powered by Research Square, In Review offers authors a personal dashboard to easily track the status of their manuscript, and the opportunity to share it with the wider community earlier in the submission and peer review process. In the first instance, this service will be available across four BMC journals….
By using In Review authors will be able to:
- Share their work while it is under review and engage the wider community in discussion (through the Hypothes.is open annotation tool)
- Track the status of their manuscript on a more granular level – including number of reviewers invited, number of reports received, and immediate access to reviewer reports
- Demonstrate the integrity of their work with a transparent editorial checklist
- Benefit from early sharing, including potential for earlier citations and collaboration opportunities…”
Following is a summary of recent APC changes for 4 publishers, prepared on request but posted in case this might be of interest to anyone else. In brief, each publisher appears to be following a different pricing strategy ranging from flat pricing over many years with one rare exception, to a tenfold increase from 2016 – 2017.
“The open access (OA) movement has had some big wins this year: In July , a cross-party group of British politicians called on the U.K. government to make all publicly funded research accessible to everyone “free of charge, online.” That same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that all NIH-funded research be made freely available 6 months after publication. But where did the OA movement come from, and where is it taking us? …”
“From close-ups that capture the animated life of insects, to aerial views of vast landscapes, the 2017 BMC Ecology Image Competition has produced a terrific array of images that reflect the variety of research in progress in the field. All images are open access and available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.”
On behalf of the Editorial Board, welcome to the new Italian Journal of Pediatrics, the official journal of the ISP/SIP (Italian Society of Pediatrics/Società Italiana di Pediatria), now publishing on BioMed Central’s open access publishing platform. The move to BioMed Central will benefit authors by having their manuscripts published faster with rapid global dissemination. Readers will also benefit from free online access to the journal via the website and a range of full text archives.
“The main purposes of the Associate Publisher role is to: Assist with the development and execution of a strategic plan for the Biological Sciences portfolio Assist with journal and team budgeting (including but not limited to honoraria, travel, and staffing) Assist with the development and execution of a strategic plan for growth of BioMed Central in key markets….”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”