Publishing Trends, Motivations, and Obstacles Among Pediatric Surgeons: An International Survey on Research Dissemination and Peer Review Challenges

Abstract

Objective This study aims to assess publishing trends, motivations, preferences, and challenges among pediatric surgeons globally.

Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pediatric surgeons from multiple countries, distributed through the Trainees of European Pediatric Surgery (TEPS) network and social media. The anonymous questionnaire contained 26 items focusing on journal preferences, motivations for publishing, obstacles faced, peer-review experiences, open access publishing, and methods of research dissemination.

Results A total of 172 responses were collected from pediatric surgeons in 33 countries. Most respondents worked in tertiary hospitals (88%) and were consultants or senior attendings (49%). Over half (65%) had published at least one scientific paper in the last 3 years. PubMed was the primary search engine (82%), and pediatric surgical journals were the preferred outlets for publication (87%). Key motivations for choosing a journal were impact factor (22%) and scope (19%), while publication costs (38%) and slow review processes (22%) were the primary deterrents. Open access publication options were used by more than half of respondents, with a third spending less than €2,500 on fees. Social media, particularly Instagram, emerged as a popular platform for research dissemination.

Conclusion Pediatric surgeons prefer publishing in specialized journals, with impact factor and scope being key drivers of journal choice. Publication costs and the peer-review process are the most significant obstacles. Efforts to address these challenges, such as reducing fees and enhancing the review process, are crucial for facilitating research dissemination in pediatric surgery.

Keywords

global publishing trends - research dissemination - peer-review - publication barriers

Publication History

Received: 16 November 2024

Accepted: 22 February 2025

Article published online:
04 April 2025

• References

• 1 Rallison SP. What are journals for?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015; 97 (02) 89-91
• 2 Smith TA, Kulatilake P, Brown LJ, Wigley J, Hameed W, Shantikumar S. Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of “instructions to authors.”. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2015; 4 (01) 17-21
• 3 Shen J, Qi H, Liu G, Li X, Fang Y. The impact of a curriculum-based research training program on medical students' research productivity and future research interests: a longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ 2024; 24 (01) 836
• 4 El Achi D, Al Hakim L, Makki M. et al. Perception, attitude, practice and barriers towards medical research among undergraduate students. BMC Med Educ 2020; 20 (01) 195
• 5 Montgomery S. Of towers, walls, and fields: perspectives on language in science. Science 2004; 303 (5662) 1333-1335
• 6 Busse CE, Anderson EW, Endale T. et al. Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7 (02) e008059
• 7 Nguyen VM, Haddaway NR, Gutowsky LFG. et al. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PLoS One 2015; 10 (08) e0132557
• 8 De Silva PUK, Vance CK. Preserving the quality of scientific research: peer review of research articles. In: De Silva PUK, Vance CK. eds. Scientific Scholarly Communication: The Changing Landscape. Springer International Publishing; 2017: 73-99
• 9 Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods 2020; 11 (02) 181-217
• 10 Fiorini N, Canese K, Starchenko G. et al. Best match: new relevance search for PubMed. PLoS Biol 2018; 16 (08) e2005343
• 11 Sosa JA, Mehta P, Thomas DC. et al. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?. Ann Surg 2009; 250 (01) 152-158
• 12 Chloros GD, Giannoudis VP, Giannoudis PV. Peer-reviewing in surgical journals: revolutionize or perish?. Ann Surg 2022; 275 (01) e82-e90
• 13 Logullo P, de Beyer JA, Kirtley S, Schlüssel MM, Collins GS. Open access journal publication in health and medical research and open science: benefits, challenges and limitations. BMJ Evid Based Med 2024; 29 (04) 223-228
• 14 Ganesh Kumar N, Meador KG, Drolet BC. Challenges in open access publishing. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (10) 875-876
• 15 Salem DN, Boumil MM. Conflict of interest in open-access publishing. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (05) 491
• 16 Gallo M, Gallo L, Mowakket S, Murphy J, Duku E, Thoma A. Identifying predatory journals in plastic surgery: a prospective study. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2022; 30 (02) 144-150
• 17 Rupp M, Anastasopoulou L, Wintermeyer E, Malhaan D, El Khassawna T, Heiss C. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (03) 509-517
• 18 Chapman SJ, Grossman RC, FitzPatrick MEB, Brady RRW. Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media. Br J Surg 2019; 1611-1616 . Epub ahead of print
• 19 Spicer JO, Coleman CG. Creating effective infographics and visual abstracts to disseminate research and facilitate medical education on social media. Clin Infect Dis 2022; 74 (Suppl. 03) e14-e22
• 20 Trueger NS, Aly E, Haneuse S, Huang E, Berkwits M. Randomized clinical trial visual abstract display and social media-driven website traffic. JAMA 2023; 330 (16) 1583-1585