Language and Geographic Representation of Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study

OBJECTIVE: Medical journals have a role in promoting representation of neurosurgeons who speak primary languages other than English. We sought to characterize the language of publication and geographic origin of neurosurgical journals, delineate associations between impact factor (IF) and language and geographic variables, and describe steps to overcome language barriers to publishing. METHODS: Web of Science, Scopus, and Ulrich\u27s Serial Analysis system were searched for neurosurgery journals. Journals were screened for relevance. Language of publication, country and World Health Organization region, World Bank income status and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and citation metrics were extracted. RESULTS: Of 867 journals, 74 neurosurgical journals were included. Common publication languages were English (52, 70.3%), Mandarin (5, 6.8%), and Spanish (4, 5.4%). Countries of publication for the greatest number of journals were the United States (23, 31.1%), United Kingdom (8, 10.8%), and China (6, 8.1%). Most journals originated from the Americas region (29, 39.2%) and European region (28, 37.8%) and from high-income countries (n=54, 73.0%). Median IF was 1.55 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.89-2.40). Journals written in English (1.77 [IQR 1.00-2.87], p=0.032) and from high-income countries (1.81 [IQR 1.0-2.70], p=0.046) had highest median IF. When excluding outliers, there was a small, positive correlation between per capita GDP and IF (β=0.021, p = 0.03, R = 0.097) CONCLUSION: Language concordance represents a substantial barrier to research equity in neurosurgery, limiting dissemination of ideas of merit that currently have inadequate outlets for readership. Initiatives aimed at increasing the accessibility of neurosurgical publishing to underrepresented authors are essential

Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries

Objective: The paper review provides a review of current practices related to evaluating support services reported by seven biomedical and research libraries. Methods: A group of seven libraries from the United States and Canada described their experiences with establishing evaluation support services at their libraries. A questionnaire was distributed among the libraries to elicit information as to program development, service and staffing models, campus partnerships, training, products such as tools and reports, and resources used for evaluation support services. The libraries also reported interesting projects, lessons learned, and future plans. Results: The seven libraries profiled in this paper report a variety of service models in providing evaluation support services to meet the needs of campus stakeholders. The service models range from research center cores, partnerships with research groups, and library programs with staff dedicated to evaluation support services. A variety of products and services were described such as an automated tool to develop rank-based metrics, consultation on appropriate metrics to use for evaluation, customized publication and citation reports, resource guides, classes and training, and others. Implementing these services has allowed the libraries to expand their roles on campus and to contribute more directly to the research missions of their institutions. Conclusions: Libraries can leverage a variety of evaluation support services as an opportunity to successfully meet an array of challenges confronting the biomedical research community, including robust efforts to report and demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes of biomedical research and clinical care. These services represent a transformative direction that can be emulated by other biomedical and research libraries