Many of the larger or better-known journals, such as the JAMA group, NEJM, Pediatrics and Obstetrics & Gynecology, offer dedicated press access and helpful, well-staffed, responsive press offices who can send you a study quickly. Wiley and Elsevier both offer limited access to certain journals at certain times, though the process can be more complex and finicky depending on what you are covering. Continue reading
The Association of Health Care Journalists has announced an enhanced partnership with global research and learning company John Wiley and Sons to provide professional journalists with access to the full collection of journals published on Wiley Online Library.
Wiley publishes on behalf of many of the world’s leading organizations dedicated to advancing health science. AHCJ members will be able to access 6 million articles from more than 1,500 journals, including Cochrane Library, Cancer, the Journal of the American Heart Association, and more.
This is the second of two blog posts providing different perspectives on the value of considering a journal’s impact factor when considering whether to report on a study published in it. Today I feature an interview with AHCJ Vice President Ivan Oransky, M.D., who is co-founder of Retraction Watch and founder of Embargo Watch. He also is vice president and global editorial director at MedPage Today.
Oransky brings a journalist’s perspective to the importance of journal impact factors in evaluating the value of a study. My earlier post featured an interview with Hilda Bastian, Ph.D. who has background in research. Continue reading
Back in February, my tip sheet on the AHCJ site about evaluating the quality of a study mentioned that a journal’s impact factor may be considered in assessing whether to report on a study. While mentioned as one factor among many — and never a definitive one — it inspired a fair amount of debate on Twitter about the value, or lack thereof, of impact factors, especially given the rise of new open-access journals that haven’t been around long enough to have a high impact factor.
To add to the discussion, I reached out to two individuals with different perspectives— largely related to their differences in goals, values and needs in the spheres of research and journalism. Today’s post features a Q&A with Hilda Bastian, Ph.D., scientist, blogger at Absolutely Maybe on the Public Library of Science (PLOS) site and cartoonist at the wonderful and educational Statistically Funny site. Bastian also is a chief editor at PubMed Health and PubMed Commons, but her words here represent only her own views and not the views of any organization, including the National Institutes of Health. Bastian comes from a background of scientific research. Continue reading
Perhaps you stumble onto an intriguing study that you haven’t seen covered and want to report on it. Or you receive a press release touting provocative findings that sound pretty astonishing … if they’re true. One potential indication of the paper’s significance and quality is the journal in which it was published.
Publication in a highly regarded journal is not a guarantee in itself that the paper is good – the blog Retraction Watch has hundreds of examples of that. In fact, one of the most famously retracted studies of all time – that of Andrew Wakefield’s attempt to link autism and vaccines in a small cases series – was published in The Lancet, one of the top medical journals in the U.K. (Ironically, that study continues to contribute to The Lancet’s impact factor because it’s the second-most-cited retracted paper as ranked by Retraction Watch.) Continue reading