↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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. 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%). The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Social Sciences 8 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2020.
All research outputs
#768,568
of 19,224,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#90
of 1,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,112
of 277,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,224,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them