RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Beginning in 1983 (Auk 100, Ibis 125) the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections, to publish a single supplement of ornithological literature to which members of both unions contribute. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 (Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and The Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors.
Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the "List of Journals Scanned" published annually in the October supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGIAL LITERATURE

Recent Ornithological Literature is a cooperative, volunteer project for the benefit of ornithologists the world over. The partnership began in 1983 (Auk 100, Ibis 125) when the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections to publish a single supplement of ornithological literature. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 (Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and the Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors.
Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the "List of Journals Scanned" published annually in the fourth supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage. Authors, editors, or publishers whose articles or journals are not covered by the ROL should send reprints, abstracts, or exchange issues to the editor responsible for covering the geographical area where the journal is published. Volunteer abstractors are welcomed.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Recent Ornithological Literature is a cooperative, volunteer project for the benefit of ornithologists the world over. The partnership began in 1983 ( Auk 100, Ibis 125) when the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections to publish a single supplement of or- mythological literature. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 ( Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and the Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors.
Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the "List of Journals Scanned published annually in the fourth supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage. Authors, editors, or publishers whose articles or journals are not covered by the ROL should send reprints, abstracts, or exchange issues to the editor responsible for covering the geographical area where the journal is published. Volunteer abstractors are welcomed.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGIAL LITERATURE

Recent Ornithological Literature is a cooperative, volunteer project for the benefit of ornithologists the world over. The partnership began in 1983 (Auk 100, Ibis 125) when the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections to publish a single supplement of ornithological literature. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 (Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and the Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors. Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the “List of Journals Scanned” published annually in the fourth supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage. Authors, editors, or publishers whose articles or journals are not covered by the ROL should send reprints, abstracts, or exchange issues to the editor responsible for covering the geographical area where the journal is published. Volunteer abstractors are welcomed.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Beginning in 1983 (Auk 100, Ibis 125) the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections, to publish a single supplement of ornithological literature to which members of both unions contribute. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 (Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and The Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the “List of Journals Scanned” published annually in the October supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Recent Ornithological Literature is a cooperative, volunteer project for the benefit of ornithologists the world over. The partnership began in 1983 (Auk 100, Ibis 125) when the AOU and BOU combined their Recent Literature sections to publish a single supplement of or- mythological literature. The RAOU joined this partnership in 1987 (Emu 87). The AOU covers journals published in the Americas and the Philippines. The BOU covers journals published in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. The RAOU covers journals published in Australasia and other island nations of the Pacific. More than 150 volunteers scan about 650 titles and contribute abstracts regularly. Authors' addresses are included, if the journal lists them, to facilitate communication between readers and authors. Recent Ornithological Literature strives for comprehensive coverage of the world's periodical literature of interest to persons studying wild birds. Readers are encouraged to consult the “List of Journals Scanned published annually in the fourth supplement and to make recommendations for increasing journal coverage. Authors, editors, or publishers whose articles or journals are not covered by the ROL should send reprints, abstracts, or exchange issues to the editor responsible for covering the geographical area where the journal is published. Volunteer abstractors are welcomed.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS

Most of the books noted below are available for reference at the Alexander Library of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Orni-thology, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford; this library is open to BOU members, Monday to Friday (09.00–17.00h); visitors are asked to write or telephone (01865271143) in advance to ensure the library is open.
The library's aim is to build up a comprehensive collection of literature, so that it may be of maximum service to ornitholo-gists. Its holdings include an extensive range of periodicals and a large number of reprints drawn from many sources; additional reprints of readers' papers are always most welcome. It has always greatly benefited from its close association with the BOU. For a number of years all journals received in exchange for Ibis have been deposited in the library. as also, through the generosity of reviewers, are most books sent for review.
In return, are a service to readers, the Recent Ornithological Publications section of Ibis is organized and edited by Dr J. Briskie, Dr. M. L. Birch and Prof C.M. Perrins ofthe Edward Grey Institute with the help of a panel of contributors. They are always grateful for offers of further assistance with reviews, especially with foreign language books and, likewise, offers to help compile the Recent Literature Supplement. in collabation with the AOU and the AOU and RAOU, are always welcome.     

RECENT ORNITHOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS

Most of the books noted below are available for reference at the Alexander Library of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford; this library is open to BOU members, Monday to Friday (09.00–17.00 h); visitors are asked to write or telephone (01865 271143) in advance to ensure the library is open.
The library's aim is to build up a comprehensive collection of literature, so that it may be of maximum service to ornithologists. Its holdings include an extensive range of periodicals and a large number of reprints drawn from many sources; additional reprints of readers' papers are always most welcome. It has always greatly benefited from its close association with the BOU. For a number of years all journals received in exchange for Ibis have been deposited in the library, as also, through the generosity of reviewers, are most books sent for review.
In return, as a service to readers, the Recent Ornithological Publications section of Ibis is organized and edited by Dr J. Blakey, Dr M. L. Birch and Prof. C. M. Perrins of the Edward Grey Institute, with the help of a panel of contributors. They are always grateful for offers of further assistance with abstracting, especially with foreign language books and, likewise, offers to help compile the Recent Literature Supplement, in collaboration with the AOU and RAOU, are always welcome.     

Recent ornithological publications

Most of the titles reviewed in this section of Ibis are available for reference at the Alexander Library of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK. The library is open to BOU members, Monday to Friday (09:00–17:00 h). Please write or telephone (+44 (0)1865 271143) prior to your visit to ensure the library is open.
The aim of the Alexander Library is to build up a comprehensive collection of literature as a service to ornithologists. Its holdings include an extensive range of periodicals and a large number of reprints drawn from many sources: additional reprints of readers' papers are always welcome. The library has always greatly benefited from its close relationship with the BOU. For a number of years, all journals received in exchange for Ibis have been deposited in the library, as also, through the generosity of reviewers, are most books sent for review.
In return, as a service to readers, this review section of Ibis is organized and edited by Dr W. Cresswell, Dr M.L. Birch and Prof. C.M. Perrins of the Edward Grey Institute, with the help of a panel of contributors. They are always grateful for offers of further assistance with reviewing, especially with foreign language titles. Offers to help compile Recent Ornithological Literature, in collaboration with the AOU and Birds Australia, are also always welcome.     

Media Coverage,Journal Press Releases and Editorials Associated with Randomized and Observational Studies in High-Impact Medical Journals: A Cohort Study

Background

Publication of clinical research findings in prominent journals influences health beliefs and medical practice, in part by engendering news coverage. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be most influential in guiding clinical practice. We determined whether study design of clinical research published in high-impact journals influences media coverage.

Methods and Findings

We compared the incidence and amount of media coverage of RCTs with that of observational studies published in the top 7 medical journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2013. We specifically assessed media coverage of the most rigorous RCTs, those with >1000 participants that reported ‘hard’ outcomes. There was no difference between RCTs and observational studies in coverage by major newspapers or news agencies, or in total number of news stories generated (all P>0.63). Large RCTs reporting ‘hard’ outcomes did not generate more news coverage than small RCTs that reported surrogate outcomes and observational studies (all P>0.32). RCTs were more likely than observational studies to attract a journal editorial (70% vs 46%, P = 0.003), but less likely to be the subject of a journal press release (17% vs 50%, P<0.001). Large RCTs that reported ‘hard’ outcomes did not attract an editorial more frequently than other studies (61% vs 58%, P>0.99), nor were they more likely to be the subject of a journal press release (14% vs 38%, P = 0.14).

Conclusions

The design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage.     

Luminescence Literature

The journal provides comprehensive literature searches on all aspects of luminescence which will be published in most issues. These lists have been produced regularly since 1986—some by year and some by specialized topic. This survey of papers on green fluorescent protein and imaging is drawn from the 2000 literature and covers reagents, assay development and validation, and applications and supplements the previous survey (J. Biolumin. Chemilumin. 1997; 12 : 113–34). The 2000 Literature Compiled by L. J. Kricka (kricka@mail.med.upenn.edu) and P. E. Stanley (stanley@lumiweb.com)     

Fifty-Year Fate and Impact of General Medical Journals

Background

Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?

Methods and Results

We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009.

Conclusions

Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.     

Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE--To examine the sensitivity and precision of Medline searching for randomised clinical trials. DESIGN--Comparison of results of Medline searches to a "gold standard" of known randomised clinical trials in ophthalmology published in 1988; systematic review (meta-analysis) of results of similar, but separate, studies from many fields of medicine. POPULATIONS--Randomised clinical trials published in 1988 in journals indexed in Medline, and those not indexed in Medline and identified by hand search, comprised the gold standard. Gold standards for the other studies combined in the meta-analysis were based on: randomised clinical trials published in any journal, whether indexed in Medline or not; those published in any journal indexed in Medline; or those published in a selected group of journals indexed in Medline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Sensitivity (proportion of the total number of known randomised clinical trials identified by the search) and precision (proportion of publications retrieved by Medline that were actually randomised clinical trials) were calculated for each study and combined to obtain weighted means. Searches producing the "best" sensitivity were used for sensitivity and precision estimates when multiple searches were performed. RESULTS--The sensitivity of searching for ophthalmology randomised clinical trials published in 1988 was 82%, when the gold standard was for any journal, 87% for any journal indexed in Medline, and 88% for selected journals indexed in Medline. Weighted means for sensitivity across all studies were 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. The weighted mean for precision was 8% (median 32.5%). Most searchers seemed not to use freetext subject terms and truncation of those terms. CONCLUSION--Although the indexing terms available for searching Medline for randomised clinical trials have improved, sensitivity still remains unsatisfactory. A mechanism is needed to "''register" known trials, preferably by retrospective tagging of Medline entries, and incorporating trials published before 1966 and in journals not indexed by Medline into the system.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.     

Editor's Note

This issue of Soviet Psychology — Vol. V, No. 1 — marks a new point in the development of English translations of Soviet psychology and psychiatry. Our original journal, published in Volumes I-IV as Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry, has given birth to two new journals: Soviet Psychology and Soviet Psychiatry. This will give International Arts and Sciences Press the opportunity to publish twice as much material from the fund of Soviet theory and research in the study of human behavior. The increased space in this new journal will allow for a broader coverage of Soviet work in psychology, as outlined in our last issue, the special Handbook of Soviet Psychology.     

Content Factor: A Measure of a Journal's Contribution to Knowledge

Impact Factor, the pre-eminent performance metric for medical journals, has been criticized for failing to capture the true impact of articles; for favoring methodology papers; for being unduly influenced by statistical outliers; and for examining a period of time too short to capture an article's long-term importance. Also, in the era of search engines, where readers need not skim through journals to find information, Impact Factor's emphasis on citation efficiency may be misplaced. A better metric would consider the total number of citations to all papers published by the journal (not just the recent ones), and would not be decremented by the total number of papers published. We propose a metric embodying these principles, "Content Factor", and examine its performance among leading medical and orthopaedic surgery journals. To remedy Impact Factor's emphasis on recent citations, Content Factor considers the total number of citations, regardless of the year in which the cited paper was published. To correct for Impact Factor's emphasis on efficiency, no denominator is employed. Content Factor is thus the total number of citations in a given year to all of the papers previously published in the journal. We found that Content Factor and Impact Factor are poorly correlated. We further surveyed 75 experienced orthopaedic authors and measured their perceptions of the "importance" of various orthopaedic surgery journals. The correlation between the importance score and the Impact Factor was only 0.08; the correlation between the importance score and Content Factor was 0.56. Accordingly, Content Factor better reflects a journal's "importance". In sum, while Content Factor cannot be defended as the lone metric of merit, to the extent that performance data informs journal evaluations, Content Factor- an easily obtained and intuitively appealing metric of the journal's knowledge contribution, not subject to gaming- can be a useful adjunct.     

Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

Background

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.

Objectives

(1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals.

Methods

Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.

Results

Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.     

Challenges and opportunities of publishing supplements at <Emphasis Type="Italic">Arthritis Research &; Therapy</Emphasis>

Supplements are the cause of much debate in the world of journal publishing. Supplements are criticized for the fact that often they are funded by an external source, and journals have been known to shy away from their publication [1]. But is refusing to publish supplements the only answer? At Arthritis Research & Therapy, we feel that - if subjected to the full rigors of peer review - supplements can provide invaluable educational resources, exploring themes in a detailed and focused way that might not always be possible in the main journal.At Arthritis Research & Therapy, we have decided that the potential risk of a loss of objectivity in industry-sponsored supplements can be managed by scrupulous attention to the peer-review process. Therefore, in our experience, the benefit of publishing supplements greatly outweighs any perception of loss of objectivity. We should note that our colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry have embraced our approach with no efforts to circumvent our rules, as far as we know.We consider proceedings, review collections, and meeting abstracts for inclusion as supplements. Examples of recent supplements are easily accessed on the journal website. It will be apparent that the emphasis is on the molecular and cellular basis of immune and inflammatory mechanisms of disease. The underwriting by the sponsor of the cost of peer review and production ensures that the high-quality publication is freely available. Outlined below is the procedure that we follow when considering any potential supplements for the journal. We recognize the potential for competing interests to influence the content of articles where there is industry involvement, but we believe that by adhering to a stringent publication process we negate this risk with our supplement content.So, what is the procedure? First, in a change from the approach taken by many journals, we appoint an ''internal'' Supplement Editor (usually from the journal''s Editorial Board), whose role is to select peer reviewers and assess the suitability of the supplement articles for publication in the journal. This internal editor is selected by the Editors-in-Chief, and the sponsor''s approval is not sought in making this appointment. Before their appointment, internal editors are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest, and full disclosures are included in both online and print versions of any supplements. In cases in which internal editors receive a stipend, this is paid for by the publisher - not the sponsor. All conflict of interest disclosures associated with supplement publications follow the National Library of Medicine policy for indexing supplement articles in MEDLINE [2].For some supplements, particularly where articles are commissioned externally, there may be an ''external'' Supplement Editor as well as the internal editor. Before their appointment, external supplement editors must be approved by the Editors-in-Chief. Their role is to identify the subject matter and propose suitable authors for the individual supplement articles, with the proviso that all content must be approved by the Editors-in-Chief. The external editor is not involved in the peer review of any of the articles once submitted. They are also asked for full conflict of interest disclosures, which are included in the supplement publication alongside those of the internal editor.One of the common criticisms levied against supplements is that the articles are not peer-reviewed to the journal''s normal standards. At Arthritis Research & Therapy, supplement articles go through the same thorough peer-review process as articles do in the main journal [3]. The Editors-in-Chief have full editorial control, including the ability to ask authors to make extensive revisions, and reserve the right to reject articles that do not meet the journal''s standards. And in accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors [4], all contracts clearly include information about editorial control and the role of the internal supplement editor.In addition to disclosures from the individual editors, sources of funding for a supplement are prominently displayed on the supplement title page, and funding is also acknowledged in each individual article. We ensure that supplements can be clearly distinguished as separate from the main journal content on the journal homepage. As with all of our articles, individual authors declare their conflicts of interest. This complies with the good publication practice (GPP2) guidelines [5]. We also adhere to the guidelines of the European Medical Writers Association [6] by ensuring that the involvement of any medical writers is disclosed in an article''s acknowledgments section along with their sources of funding.We hope that by ensuring that there is full transparency of disclosures from everyone involved in supplements and following strictly the peer-review procedure described above, we avoid the potential pitfalls of supplement publishing. The guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors themselves state that supplements ''serve useful purposes'' and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that they continue to be useful without allowing ourselves to be subject to industry influence. By publicly disclosing our policy for supplement review here, we hope that other journals will be more open about their peer-review policies for supplements and that they adopt similarly stringent practices in the future.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.