Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Entire Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements

  1. Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
  2. Shane Desselle
  3. Derek Stewar
  4. Victoria Garcia-Cardenas 1
  5. Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar
  6. Christine Bond
  7. Ana Dago 2
  8. Ramune Jacobsen
  9. Lotte Stig Nørgaard
  10. Carlo Polidori
  11. Manuel Sánchez-Polo 3
  12. Bernardo Santos-Ramos 4
  13. Natalia Shcherbakova
  14. Fernanda S. Tonin 5
  1. 1 University of Technology Sydney
    info

    University of Technology Sydney

    Sídney, Australia

    ROR https://ror.org/03f0f6041

  2. 2 Pharmaceutical Care España Foundation
  3. 3 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

  4. 4 Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío (Sevilla)
  5. 5 Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde (ESTeSL) (Lisboa)
Zugehörigkeit anzeigen +
Zeitschrift:
Ars pharmaceutica

ISSN: 2340-9894,  0004-2927

Datum der Publikation: 2023

Ausgabe: 64

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 161-172

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.30827/ARS.V64I2.27182 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Ars pharmaceutica

Zusammenfassung

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been de-fined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical phar-macy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice dis-seminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scatter-ing, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors’ selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):14.
  • Al Saeedy D, Thomas D, Palaian S. Visibility of evidence-based pharmacy on PubMed Identity crisis? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(11):1374.
  • Almarsdottir AB, Granas AG. Social pharmacy and clinical pharmacy-Joining forces. Pharmacy (Basel). 2015;4(1.
  • Bailar JC, 3rd, Patterson K. The need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(10):654-7.
  • Becker T. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Educ. 1982;6(2):109–22.
  • Biglan A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. J Appl Psychol. 1973;57(3):195–203.
  • Clapham P. Publish or perish. BioScience. 2005;55):390-1.
  • Desselle SP, Amin M, Aslani P, et al. Moving the needle-what does RSAP look for and what does it aim to do? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(1):1-2.
  • Desselle SP, Andrews B, Lui J, et al. The scholarly productivity and work environments of academic pharmacists. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018;14(8):727-35.
  • Desselle SP, Chen AM, Amin M, et al. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(2):261-5.
  • Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. 2022; Available at: https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/y41ks1wh/20220720-rra-agreement.pdf. [Accessed 02-Nov-2022]
  • Donato H, Marinho RT. Acta Medica Portuguesa and peer-review: quick and brutal! Acta Med Port. 2012;25(5):261-2.
  • Dougherty MR, Horne Z. Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(8):220334.
  • Dreischulte T, van den Bemt B, Steurbaut S. European Society of Clinical Pharmacy definition of the term clinical pharmacy and its relationship to pharmaceutical care: a position paper. Intl J Clinical Pharm. 2022;44:1-6.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F, Garcia-Cardenas V. The importance of using standardized terminology in titles and abstracts of pharmacy practice articles. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F, Mendes AM, Tonin FS. Confusing terminology used in the abbreviation of pharmacy journal names. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022;18(8):3463-5.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS. How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020;18(1):1804.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM. Standardization of pharmacy practice terminology and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(4):819-20.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F. Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing? Pharm Pract (Granada). 2021;19(1):2284.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F. Bradford’s law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(3):842.
  • Fernandez-Llimos F. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019;17(1):1502.
  • Garcia-Cardenas V, Rossing CV, Fernandez-Llimos F, et al. Pharmacy practice research A call to action. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(11):1602-8.
  • Gernant SA, Bacci JL, Upton C, et al. Three opportunities for standardization: A literature review of the variation among pharmacists’ patient care services terminology. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(6):766-75.
  • Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569-72.
  • Holmes ER, Desselle SP. Is scientific paradigm important for pharmacy education? Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(5):118.
  • Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-50.
  • Irwin AN, Rackham D. Comparison of the time-to-indexing in PubMed between biomedical journals according to impact factor, discipline, and focus. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(2):389-93.
  • Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-6.
  • Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):MR000016.
  • Jirschitzka J, Oeberst A, Göllner R, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics. 2017;113(2):1059-92.
  • Karimi-Sari H, Rezaee-Zavareh MS. Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use. Med J Aust. 2020;213(5):238-9 e1.
  • Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272(2):96-7.
  • Kerlinger FN, Lee HB. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1999. ISBN: 978-0155078970
  • Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, et al. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):651-71.
  • Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-2.
  • Liu XL, Gai SS, Zhou J. Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction? PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151414.
  • Lodahl J, Gordon G. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. Am Sociolog Rer. 1972;37(1):57-72.
  • MacLure K, Paudyal V, Stewart D. Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic? Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):685-94.
  • Malone T, Burke S. Academic librarians’ knowledge of bibliometrics and altmetrics. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2016;11):3.
  • Marsh HW, Hattie J. The relation between research productivity and teaching Effectiveness. The Journal of Higher Education. 2016;73(5):603-41.
  • McCann A. Advantages of a universal coding and classification system for drugs. Implications of classification for medical subject headings. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1966;23(2):87-8.
  • McGillivray B, Jenset G, Salama K, et al. Investigating patterns of change, stability, and interaction among scientific disciplines using embeddings. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2022;9:285.
  • Mendes AM, Tonin FS, Buzzi MF, et al. Mapping pharmacy journals: A lexicographic analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(12):1464-71.
  • Mendes AM, Tonin FS, Mainka FF, et al. Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253713.
  • Minguet F, Salgado TM, Santopadre C, et al. Redefining the pharmacology and pharmacy subject category in the journal citation reports using medical subject headings (MeSH). Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(5):989-97.
  • Minguet F, Salgado TM, van den Boogerd L, et al. Quality of pharmacy-specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) assignment in pharmacy journals indexed in MEDLINE. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2015;11(5):686-95.
  • Minguet F, Van Den Boogerd L, Salgado TM, et al. Characterization of the Medical Subject Headings thesaurus for pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(22):1965-72.
  • OECD. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD; 2015. ISBN: 978-926423901-2
  • Paulus FM, Cruz N, Krach S. The Impact Factor Fallacy. Front Psychol. 2018;9):1487.
  • Perry RP, Smart JC. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media; 2007.
  • Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, et al. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(3):220-32.
  • Rodriguez RW. Comparison of indexing times among articles from medical, nursing, and pharmacy journals. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(8):569-75.
  • Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007;179(6):1091-2.
  • Scahill SL, Atif M, Babar ZU. Defining pharmacy and its practice: a conceptual model for an international audience. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6):121-9.
  • Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-14.
  • Sørensen E, Mount J, Christensen S. The concept of social pharmacy. Chronic Illn. 2003;7:8-11.
  • Tonin FS, Gmunder V, Bonetti AF, et al. Use of ‘Pharmaceutical services’ Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in articles assessing pharmacists’ interventions. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2022;7):100172.
  • Van Mil JW, Henman M. Terminology, the importance of defining. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):709- 13.
  • Van Mil JWF, Green J. Citations and science. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(5):977-9.
  • Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? J Biol. 2009;8(3):24.
  • Williams K. Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment. Res Eval. 2020;29(2):191-202.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet