Improving the Quality of Publications in and Advancing the Paradigms of Clinical and Social Pharmacy Practice Research: The Granada Statements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30968/rbfhss.2023.141.0913Abstract
Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors’ selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.
Downloads
References
McGillivray B, Jenset G, Salama K, et al. Investigating patterns of change, stability, and interaction among scientific disciplines using embeddings. Humanit Soc Sci Commun2022;9:285.
Biglan A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. JAppl Psychol. 1973;57(3):195–203.
Becker T. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Educ. 1982;6(2):109–22.
Lodahl J, Gordon G. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. Am SociologRer. 1972;37(1):57-72.
Perry RP, Smart JC. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media; 2007.
Almarsdottir AB, Granas AG. Social pharmacy and clinical pharmacy-Joining forces. Pharmacy (Basel). 2015;4(1.
Holmes ER, Desselle SP. Is scientific paradigm important for pharmacy education? Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(5):118.
Marsh HW, Hattie J. The relation between research productivity and teaching Effectiveness. The Journal of Higher Education. 2016;73(5):603-41.
Williams K. Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment. Res Eval. 2020;29(2):191-202.
Mendes AM, Tonin FS, Buzzi MF, et al. Mapping pharmacy journals: A lexicographic analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(12):1464-71.
Sørensen E, Mount J, Christensen S. The concept of social pharmacy. Chronic Illn. 2003;7:8-11.
Garcia-Cardenas V, Rossing CV, Fernandez-Llimos F, et al. Pharmacy practice research - A call to action. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(11):1602-8.
Kerlinger FN, Lee HB. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1999. ISBN: 978-0155078970
Dreischulte T, van den Bemt B, Steurbaut S. European Society of Clinical Pharmacy
definition of the term clinical pharmacy and its relationship to pharmaceutical care: a position paper. Intl J Clinical Pharm. 2022;44:1-6.
Scahill SL, Atif M, Babar ZU. Defining pharmacy and its practice: a conceptual model for an international audience. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6):121-9.
OECD. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD; 2015. ISBN: 978-926423901-2
Clapham P. Publish or perish. BioScience. 2005;55):390-1.
Desselle SP, Amin M, Aslani P, et al. Moving the needle-what does RSAP look for and what does it aim to do? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(1):1-2.
Fernandez-Llimos F, Mendes AM, Tonin FS. Confusing terminology used in the abbreviation of pharmacy journal names. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022;18(8):3463-5.
Fernandez-Llimos F, Garcia-Cardenas V. The importance of using standardized terminology in titles and abstracts of pharmacy practice articles. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022.
Gernant SA, Bacci JL, Upton C, et al. Three opportunities for standardization: A literature review of the variation among pharmacists' patient care services terminology. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(6):766-75.
van Mil JW, Henman M. Terminology, the importance of defining. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):709-13.
MacLure K, Paudyal V, Stewart D. Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic? Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):685-94.
Al Saeedy D, Thomas D, Palaian S. Visibility of evidence-based pharmacy on PubMed - Identity crisis? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(11):1374.
McCann A. Advantages of a universal coding and classification system for drugs. Implications of classification for medical subject headings. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1966;23(2):87-8.
Minguet F, Van Den Boogerd L, Salgado TM, et al. Characterization of the Medical Subject Headings thesaurus for pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(22):1965-72.
Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM. Standardization of pharmacy practice terminology and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(4):819-20.
Minguet F, Salgado TM, van den Boogerd L, et al. Quality of pharmacy-specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) assignment in pharmacy journals indexed in MEDLINE. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2015;11(5):686-95.
Tonin FS, Gmunder V, Bonetti AF, et al. Use of 'Pharmaceutical services' Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in articles assessing pharmacists' interventions. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2022;7):100172.
Rodriguez RW. Comparison of indexing times among articles from medical, nursing, and pharmacy journals. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(8):569-75.
Irwin AN, Rackham D. Comparison of the time-to-indexing in PubMed between biomedical journals according to impact factor, discipline, and focus. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(2):389-93.
Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-2.
Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272(2):96-7.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-14.
Bailar JC, 3rd, Patterson K. The need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(10):654-7.
Jirschitzka J, Oeberst A, Göllner R, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics. 2017;113(2):1059-92.
Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-6.
Jefferson T, Rudin M, BrodneyFolse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):MR000016.
Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, et al. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):651-71.
Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? J Biol. 2009;8(3):24.
Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):633-50.
Mendes AM, Tonin FS, Mainka FF, et al. Publication speed in pharmacy practice journals: A comparative analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253713.
Fernandez-Llimos F. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019;17(1):1502.
Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):14.
Desselle SP, Chen AM, Amin M, et al. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(2):261-5.
Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS. How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020;18(1):1804.
Donato H, Marinho RT. Acta Medica Portuguesa and peer-review: quick and brutal! Acta Med Port. 2012;25(5):261-2.
Fernandez-Llimos F. Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing? Pharm Pract (Granada). 2021;19(1):2284.
Desselle SP, Andrews B, Lui J, et al. The scholarly productivity and work environments of academic pharmacists. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018;14(8):727-35.
Karimi-Sari H, Rezaee-Zavareh MS. Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use. Med J Aust. 2020;213(5):238-9 e1.
Liu XL, Gai SS, Zhou J. Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction? PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151414.
Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007;179(6):1091-2.
Fernandez-Llimos F. Bradford's law, the long tail principle, and transparency in Journal Impact Factor calculations. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(3):842.
Paulus FM, Cruz N, Krach S. The Impact Factor Fallacy. Front Psychol. 2018;9):1487.
Dougherty MR, Horne Z. Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. R Soc Open Sci. 2022;9(8):220334.
Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, et al. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020;28(3):220-32.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569-72.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. 2022; Available at: https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/y41ks1wh/20220720-rra-agreement.pdf. [Accessed 02-Nov-2022]
van Mil JWF, Green J. Citations and science. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(5):977-9.
Minguet F, Salgado TM, Santopadre C, et al. Redefining the pharmacology and pharmacy subject category in the journal citation reports using medical subject headings (MeSH). Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(5):989-97.
Malone T, Burke S. Academic librarians’ knowledge of bibliometrics and altmetrics. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2016;11):3.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to RBFHSS: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print republish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to RHFHSS with this document.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Serlf-archiving policy
This journal permits and encourages authors to post and archive the final pdf of the articles submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit its publication in this journal.
