1 / 32

Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion

Introdução à Medicina II Adviser : RODRIGUES, Pedro Pereira. Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

booker
Download Presentation

Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introdução à Medicina II Adviser: RODRIGUES, Pedro Pereira RelevanceofOnline 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 15thClass21 de Maio de 2012

  2. SUMMARY

  3. Introduction INTRODUCTION Motivations Aims Methodology RESULTS Discussion COnclusion References

  4. Introduction INTRODUCTION Motivations Aims HEALTH SCIENCIES Thefieldwhere up-to-date informationisabsolutlyneeded[1] Methodology RESULTS Discussion COnclusion References FONTE: http://www.cie.uci.edu/academics/healthsci.html

  5. Introduction INTRODUCTION Motivations Aims Methodology SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS Thequickestwayofputtingknowledgeavailable to everyone, throughscientificpapers[3] RESULTS Discussion COnclusion References

  6. Introduction INTRODUCTION Motivations Aims Methodology TECHNOLOGY New capabilityesandchallenges in accessingscientific medical literature[2] RESULTS Discussion COnclusion References

  7. Introduction INTRODUCTION Motivations Aims But, as we all know, the article approval is a long complex process Methodology RESULTS Discussion COnclusion References

  8. RESEARCH QUESTION Are online scientific journal services adequate to the stakeholders’ needs?

  9. INTRODUCTION MOTIVATIONS MOTIVATIONS Aims • 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); Methodology results discussion conclusion References

  10. INTRODUCTION MOTIVATIONS MOTIVATIONS Aims Methodology results discussion conclusion References • Have a positive contribute to the scientific research done in FMUP

  11. AIMS

  12. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY MOTIVATIONS Aims Study design METHODOLOGY • Exploratory and transverse study • Quantitative method of data analysis results discussion Sample Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria stakeholders were selected conclusion References Reviewers Authors Readers Editors Media Medicine and Dentistry Faculties Research units

  13. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY – Contacts’ collection MOTIVATIONS Aims Considering we collected authors’, reviewers’ and editors’ contacts from scientific journals, these last ones must respect the inclusion criteria. METHODOLOGY results discussion conclusion References Overall 153 ScientificJournals

  14. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY – InclusionCriteria MOTIVATIONS Authors Aims • Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least) • Regular contact with scientific journals • To have 2published indexed international publications in the last year • Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least) • Regular contact with scientific journals • Last revision of a scientific article not more than 1 year • 2 revisions per year METHODOLOGY results discussion Reviewers conclusion References

  15. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY – InclusionCriteria MOTIVATIONS Aims Readers METHODOLOGY • Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least) • Regular contact with scientific journals • Higher qualifications (Bachelor at least) • Regular contact with scientific journals • Last edited publication not more than 1 year • Portuguese origin • Web page on the internet results discussion Editors conclusion References Media

  16. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY – InclusionCriteria MOTIVATIONS Aims Research Units METHODOLOGY • Portuguese origin • Web page on the internet • Daily contact with scientific journals • Portuguese origin • Web page on the internet • The existence of, at least, one group focusing on investigation results discussion Medicine andDentistryFaculties conclusion References

  17. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY MOTIVATIONS ExclusionCriteria Aims • 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. METHODOLOGY results discussion EthicalAspects conclusion References

  18. FLOWCHART Overall: 79 answers

  19. INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY MOTIVATIONS Aims Data collection METHODOLOGY • 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). results discussion conclusion Data analysis References • Descriptiveandparametricstatistics (using IBM SPSS Statistics – 20th version).

  20. INTRODUCTION Questionnaire MOTIVATIONS Part I Characterization of the stakeholder Aims METHODOLOGY Part II Questions about online scientific journals results Part III Personal data discussion Interview conclusion References Part I Close answers about online scientific journals Part II Open answers about online scientific journals

  21. INTRODUCTION RESULTS MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY Results Table 1: Relevance of the help on the subscription process. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05 discussion Conclusion References Table 2: Relevance of the discussion chat. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05

  22. INTRODUCTION RESULTS MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY Results Table 3: Quality of subscription. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05 discussion Conslusion References Table 4: Relevance of subscription. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05

  23. INTRODUCTION RESULTS MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY Results discussion Table 5: Relevance of the help for readers. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05 Conclusion References Table 6: Relevance of connection to social network. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. *p<0,05

  24. INTRODUCTION RESULTS MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY Results Table 7: Relevance of the help for authors. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05 discussion Conclusion References

  25. INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY results discussion 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. conclusion references

  26. INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY results discussion Table 5: Relevance of the help for readers. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. * p<0,05 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. conclusion references

  27. INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION MOTIVATIONS Aims METODOLOGY results Table 6: Relevance of connection to social network. a – Chi-Square Test. b – Fisher’s Exact Test. *p<0,05 discussion 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. conclusion references

  28. INTRODUCTION CONCLUSION MOTIVATIONS Aims • 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. METODOLOGY results conclusion discussion references

  29. INTRODUCTION CONCLUSION MOTIVATIONS Aims • 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. METODOLOGY results conclusion discussion References

  30. INTRODUCTION REFERENCES MOTIVATIONS Aims [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 AnnuSymp Proc., 2003: p. 1027. [3] Castro, R.C.F., Impacto da Internet no fluxo da comunicação científica em saúde. Revista de SaúdePública, 2006. 40: p. 57-63. METODOLOGY results discussion conlusion REFERENCES

  31. ANY QUESTION

  32. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

More Related