Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature
Do you wish to request the book?
Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature
2023
Overview
Background
The methodological quality of open access studies has long been questioned due to increasing popularity and accessibility. The objective of this study is to compare the methodological quality of open access versus traditional journal publications in the plastic surgery literature.
Methods
Four traditional plastic surgery journals with their sister open access journals were chosen. For each of the eight journals, 10 articles were randomly selected for inclusion. Methodological quality was examined using validated instruments. Publication descriptors were compared to methodological quality values using ANOVA. Logistic regression was used to compare quality scores between open access and traditional journals.
Results
There was a wide distribution of levels of evidence, with a quarter being level one. Regression of non-randomized studies indicated a significantly higher proportion of traditional journal articles were of high methodological quality (89.6%) when compared to open access journals (55.6%;
p
< 0.05). This difference persisted in three quarter of the sister journal groups. No publication descriptions were associated with methodological quality.
Conclusions
Methodological quality scores were higher among traditional access journals. Higher degrees of peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in open access plastic surgery publications.
Level of Evidence V
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors
www.springer.com/00266
.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
