Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Authors: Martin Duracinsky, Christophe Lalanne, Laurence Rous, Aichata Fofana Dara, Lesya Baudoin, Claire Pellet, Alexandre Descamps, Fabienne Péretz, Olivier Chassany

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs.

Methods

A 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.

Results

Between 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).

Conclusions

The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Soyer P, Taourel P, Trillaud H, Vicaut E, Laurent F, Dion E. Why and how to write and publish a paper in a radiology journal. J Radiol. 2011;92(3):171–82. [in French]CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Curzon ME, Cleaton-Jones PE. Writing scientific papers for publication: “Without publication research is sterile”. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2012;13(1):4–10.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rouvillain JL, Derancourt C, Moore N, Devos P. Scoring of medical publications with SIGAPS software: Application to orthopedics. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(7):821–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mancini J, Darmoni S, Chaudet H, Fieschi M. The paradox of bibliometric activity-based funding (T2A) SIGAPS: a risk of deleterious effects on French hospital research? Presse Med. 2009;38(2):174–6. [in French]CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lefèvre JH, Faron M, Drouin SJ, Glanard A, Chartier-Kastler E, Parc Y, et al. Objective evaluation and comparison of the scientific publication from the departments of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris: analysis of the SIGAPS score. Rev Med Interne. 2013;34(6):342–8. [in French]CrossRefPubMed
7.
Barron JP. The uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Chest. 2006;129(4):1098–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012;1:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV. How to write and publish an original research article. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):344.e1–6.CrossRef
10.
11.
Scott A, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT. Is Mandatory Prospective Trial Registration Working to Prevent Publication of Unregistered Trials and Selective Outcome Reporting? An Observational Study of Five Psychiatry Journals That Mandate Prospective Clinical Trial Registration. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0133718.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Dal-Ré R, Ross JS, Marušić A. Compliance with prospective trial registration guidance remained low in high-impact journals and has implications for primary end point reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. pii: S0895–4356(16)00048–2.
13.
Smith TA, Kulatilake P, Brown LJ, Wigley J, Hameed W, Shantikumar S. Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of ‘instructions to authors’. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2015;4(1):17–21.CrossRefPubMedCentral
14.
Montgomery S. Of towers, walls, and fields: perspectives on language in science. Science. 2004;303(5662):1333–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sridharan L, Greenland P. Editorial policies and publication bias: the importance of negative studies. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(11):1022–3.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ. 2014; doi: 10.​1136/​bmj.​g6870.
17.
Driessen E, Hollon SD, Bockting CL, Cuijpers P, Turner EH. Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137864.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012;344:d7202.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(3):252–60.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Duracinsky M, Herrmann S, Berzins B, Armstrong AR, Kohli R, Le Coeur S, et al. The development of PROQOL-HIV: an international instrument to assess the health-related quality of life of persons living with HIV/AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;59(5):498–505.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Chassany O, Tugaut B, Marrel A, Guyonnet D, Arbuckle R, Duracinsky M, et al. The Intestinal Gas Questionnaire: development of a new instrument for measuring gas-related symptoms and their impact on daily life. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(6):885–98.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Harrell F. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression and Survival Analysis. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. 2015.
24.
Capuano AW, Dawson JD, Gray GC. Maximizing power in seroepidemiological studies through the use of the proportional odds model. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2007;1(3):87–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Ho RC, Mak KK, Tao R, Lu Y, Day JR, Pan F. Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Salvà A, Domingo À, Roqué i Figuls M, Serra-Rexach JA. Report: an analysis of publications by members of the Spanish Geriatrics and Gerontology Society from 2006 to 2011. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2013;48(4):180–4. [in Spanish]CrossRefPubMed
27.
Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:803–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Ramakandan R. The “discussion” in a research paper. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2007;17:148–9.CrossRef
30.
Fridner A, Norell A, Åkesson G, Gustafsson Sendén M, Tevik Løvseth L, Schenck-Gustafsson K. Possible reasons why female physicians publish fewer scientific articles than male physicians - a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Paiva CE, Araujo RLC, Paiva BSR, de Pádua SC, Cárcano FM, Costa MM, et al. What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multinational web-based survey. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:718.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Antonelli M, Mercurio G. Reporting, access, and transparency: better infrastructure of clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(1 Suppl):S178–83.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Study Investigators NICE-SUGAR, Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283–97.CrossRef
35.
Boumil MM, Salem DN. In… and out: open access publishing in scientific journals. Qual Manag Health Care. 2014;23(3):133–7.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Tzarnas S, Tzarnas CD. Publish or perish, and pay--the new paradigm of open-access journals. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(2):283–5.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hamilton CW, Gertel A, Jacobs A, Marchington J, Weaver S, Woolley K. Mythbusting medical writing: Goodbye, ghosts! Hello, help! Account Res. 2016;23(3):178–94.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Gattrell WT, Hopewell S, Young K, Farrow P, White R, Wager E, et al. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomized controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
40.
Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015; doi: 10.​1186/​s12916-015-0460-y.
41.
Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1979.
42.
Weimiao F, Zheng Y. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(2):132–9.CrossRef
43.
Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, Noseworthy T, Beck CA, Dixon E, et al. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Metadata
Title
Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study
Authors
Martin Duracinsky
Christophe Lalanne
Laurence Rous
Aichata Fofana Dara
Lesya Baudoin
Claire Pellet
Alexandre Descamps
Fabienne Péretz
Olivier Chassany
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

What’s the uptake? Pragmatic RCTs may be used to estimate uptake, and thereby population impact of interventions, but better reporting of trial recruitment processes is needed

Research article

Measuring health-related quality of life in cervical cancer patients: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity

Erratum

Erratum to: Exploring functional data analysis and wavelet principal component analysis on ecstasy (MDMA) wastewater data

Research article

The impact of the lookback period and definition of confirmatory events on the identification of incident cancer cases in administrative data

Research Article

On comparison of net survival curves

Research article

Selection bias and subject refusal in a cluster-randomized controlled trial