Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer

Kelly D. Cobey, James Galipeau, Larissa Shamseer and David Moher
CMAJ September 06, 2016 188 (12) E279-E280; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.151340
Kelly D. Cobey
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program (Cobey, Galipeau, Shamseer, Moher), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Cobey, Shamseer, Moher), Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Psychology (Cobey), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kcobey@toh.on.ca
James Galipeau
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program (Cobey, Galipeau, Shamseer, Moher), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Cobey, Shamseer, Moher), Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Psychology (Cobey), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Larissa Shamseer
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program (Cobey, Galipeau, Shamseer, Moher), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Cobey, Shamseer, Moher), Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Psychology (Cobey), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Moher
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program (Cobey, Galipeau, Shamseer, Moher), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Cobey, Shamseer, Moher), Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Psychology (Cobey), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Concerns about deficiencies in the reporting quality of biomedical research have been expressed for more than three decades.1 In spite of this, articles continue to pass through editorial and peer review processes and are published with critical aspects of their methods and results missing or inadequately described. Reporting biases also remain problematic.2–7 Together, these practices limit the integrity of biomedical literature and hinder reproducibility efforts. In an attempt to alleviate these problems, Moher and Altman recently proposed four potential contributory actions for journals and educational institutions to consider.8 Here, we present a description of our efforts to implement their first proposed action: the introduction of a publications officer.

The primary objective of a publications officer is to provide institutional guidance and support to researchers and trainees on how to prepare manuscripts for journal submission.8 At present, formal training on how to write biomedical manuscripts is largely absent from universities and other research institutions. Where such training does exist, it tends to be informal and may not be evidence-based. Moreover, existing training courses on academic integrity typically omit discussion of publication integrity and ethics or how to report research adequately, both of which are essential responsibilities for authors. This situation is inadequate, and lack of training on these topics may be partially to blame for the reporting deficiencies outlined above. The introduction of publications officers may represent a meaningful institutional investment to fill an important gap in support services at the back end of research.

We began a pilot project in which we hired a publications officer (K.D.C.) at our institution, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and the neighbouring Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute. Both institutions recognized that there are problems with biomedical reporting and have sought to be innovators in developing solutions in this area. Against this background, it is unsurprising that our experience with this pilot project has been mostly positive. Discussions with relevant leadership at both institutions suggest that researchers have similar learning needs with regard to publication processes. We have perceived a genuine appetite for publications outreach, with a particular interest in topics that include authorship policies, predatory journals, peer review and guidance on selecting a journal for manuscript submission.

Discipline research leaders across both institutions appear to support the relevance of this type of service. Interestingly, on occasion, there has been some lack of clarity regarding the scope of the publications officer position. Our impression is that several senior scientists felt that the services offered by the publications officer would be beneficial for graduate students and researchers who are at the beginning of their career development; however, senior scientists were more resistant to the perceived impact it could have on them. We hope to reach a broad spectrum of researchers through targeted seminars (e.g., speaking at retreats for senior scientists). Furthermore, within our two organizations, we found that the lag period (six months) between hiring the publications officer and starting outreach services enabled our understanding of institutional structures, establishment of relationships, building interest and scheduling outreach programs.

We are currently evaluating the publications officer position. Briefly, we intend to conduct before-and-after comparisons of self-reported knowledge and perceptions of publication practices among researchers at institutes that do and do not receive outreach from the publications officer. Planned outreach involves a series of targeted seminars (e.g., How to peer review), researcher-initiated one-on-one consultations to discuss publication questions and the development of a presubmission peer review network for manuscripts. In addition, we will maintain a web page of journalology resources (www.ohri.ca/journalology) to assist researchers in keeping up to date on internal and external changes in the publication landscape. Specific methods and findings of this evaluation will be described in a future publication.

We will continue to monitor this new role by tracking and reporting changes over time so that the position evolves to serve the research community most usefully. Introducing publications officers, if proven to be worthwhile and impactful, may be one way that research institutions can contribute to adding value to the biomedical literature. Unquestionably, new models and options to incentivize complete and transparent reporting will need to be explored in tandem with this role.

Key points
  • Deficiencies in the reporting quality of biomedical research limit the usability of findings.

  • Introducing institutional publications officers, who provide training and outreach to authors on how to write clearly and completely, as well as advice on publication topics (e.g., open access, metrics, ethics and integrity), could reduce these deficiencies.

  • We describe our pilot of a publications officer and our planned monitoring framework for the position.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Kelly Cobey is the publications officer at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

  • No other competing interests were declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Kelly Cobey drafted the manuscript. James Galipeau, Larissa Shamseer and David Moher contributed important intellectual feedback and commentary on several versions of the manuscript. All of the authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hemminki E
    . Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ 1980;280:833–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Glasziou P,
    2. Meats E,
    3. Heneghan C,
    4. et al
    . What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336: 1472–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Dwan K,
    2. Gamble C,
    3. Williamson PR,
    4. et al
    . Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias — an updated review. PLoS One 2013;8: e66844.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mallett S,
    2. Timmer A,
    3. Sauerbrei W,
    4. et al
    . Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines. Br J Cancer 2010; 102:173–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kilkenny C,
    2. Parsons N,
    3. Kadyszewski E,
    4. et al
    . Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 2009;4:e7824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chan A,
    2. Hrobjartsson A,
    3. Haahr MT,
    4. et al
    . Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 2004;291:2457–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Saini P,
    2. Loke YK,
    3. Gamble C,
    4. et al
    . Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2014;349:g6501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Altman DG
    . Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001864.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (12)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 12
6 Sep 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer
Kelly D. Cobey, James Galipeau, Larissa Shamseer, David Moher
CMAJ Sep 2016, 188 (12) E279-E280; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151340

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer
Kelly D. Cobey, James Galipeau, Larissa Shamseer, David Moher
CMAJ Sep 2016, 188 (12) E279-E280; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151340
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Updated CMAJ policy on undisclosed competing interests
  • Canadian funders and institutions are lagging on reporting results of clinical trials
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision
  • Antiviral treatment for COVID-19: ensuring evidence is applicable to current circumstances
  • Who is Black? The urgency of accurately defining the Black population when conducting health research in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Journalology & publication ethics
    • Medical education, residency, internship

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire