1 / 6

Background for Discussion – Nuclear Medical Imaging Publication

Background for Discussion – Nuclear Medical Imaging Publication. In June, 2001, proposal made to TAB to split off nuclear medical and imaging papers from TNS to form a TNS Part B Major motivation was to make it easier to have such papers indexed for medically based search engines

bruis
Télécharger la présentation

Background for Discussion – Nuclear Medical Imaging Publication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Background for Discussion –Nuclear Medical Imaging Publication • In June, 2001, proposal made to TAB to split off nuclear medical and imaging papers from TNS to form a TNS Part B • Major motivation was to make it easier to have such papers indexed for medically based search engines • Proposal rejected because of EMBS objections • This led to creation of “journal within a journal” – the NMIS section of TNS published 3x per year • Attempts made to have TNS indexed by MEDLINE

  2. Summary of 1st Index Medicus Review - 2005 • Score of 4 (out of 5) required for inclusion - we received a score of 3 • Lacking in review articles; clinical research; interest to allied health professionals and policy makers • Comments: “The reported research is excellent with structured articles. This journal represents an emerging field of nuclear medicine and imaging. However, one concern is that most of the articles presented do not seem relevant to human health.”

  3. Summary of 2nd Index Medicus Review - 2009 • Overall rating 0 out of 5 • Overall quality very high, lacking in importance to everyone other than researchers • Comments: “…Although this journal’s topic is about medical imaging, the target audience is scientists and engineers developing medical imaging devices using nuclear science. The subject matter is not sufficiently within the scope of biomedical and life sciences subjects appropriate for inclusion in MEDLINE.”

  4. Summary of 3rd Index Medicus Review - 2011 • Comments: “NLM staff/subject specialists […] have carefully examined the contents […] and determined that the subject matter is not sufficiently within the scope of biomedical and life sciences subjects appropriate for inclusion in MEDLINE. Therefore, I regret that we cannot consider reviewing these titles for future inclusion in MEDLINE.”

  5. Summary of Current Status • Been unable to get TNS indexed in its current form • Can try to appeal, provide strong evidence their evaluations of irrelevance are incorrect • However, review board seems predisposed to reject (and may not even allow reconsideration) • Could try again to split off NMIS papers into a separate journal – submit that for MEDLINE consideration

  6. Potential Issues with “TNS Part B” • Separation could be awkward at times – many similarities in radiation detectors, imaging systems, technologies (reasons NSS/MIC are coupled) • Should it be just nuclear medical imaging, or also include nuclear medicine articles • How to get past EMBS objections? • Is this what we want to do?

More Related