relevance of online journal services stakeholders opinion n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Relevance of Online Journal Services – Stakeholders ’ Opinion' - booker


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
relevance of online journal services stakeholders opinion

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

introduction

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Motivations

Aims

Methodology

RESULTS

Discussion

COnclusion

References

introduction1

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

introduction2

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Motivations

Aims

Methodology

SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

Thequickestwayofputtingknowledgeavailable to everyone, throughscientificpapers[3]

RESULTS

Discussion

COnclusion

References

introduction3

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Motivations

Aims

Methodology

TECHNOLOGY

New capabilityesandchallenges in accessingscientific medical literature[2]

RESULTS

Discussion

COnclusion

References

introduction4

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Motivations

Aims

But, as we all know, the article approval is a

long complex process

Methodology

RESULTS

Discussion

COnclusion

References

research question
RESEARCH QUESTION

Are online scientific journal services adequate to the stakeholders’ needs?

motivations

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

motivations1

INTRODUCTION

MOTIVATIONS

MOTIVATIONS

Aims

Methodology

results

discussion

conclusion

References

  • Have a positive contribute to the scientific research done in FMUP
methodology

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

methodology contacts collection

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

methodology inclusion criteria

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

methodology inclusion criteria1

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

methodology inclusion criteria2

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

methodology1

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

f l o w c h a r t
FLOWCHART

Overall: 79 answers

methodology2

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).
questionnaire

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

results

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

results1

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

results2

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

results3

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

discussion

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

discussion1

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

discussion2

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

conclusion

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

conclusion1

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

references

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