Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

A new general medical journal for the 21st centrury, focusing on innovation in health and medical research

Latest Submissions Open for Peer Review

A new feature on the JMIR website, open peer review articles, allows JMIR users to sign themselves up as peer reviewers for specific articles currently considered by the Journal (in addition to author- and editor-selected reviewers). The list below shows recently submitted articles where submitting authors have not opted-out of the open peer-review experiment and where the editor has not made a decision yet. (Note that this feature is for reviewing specific articles - if you just want to sign up as reviewer (and wait for the editor to contact you if articles match your interests), please sign up as reviewer using your profile).
To assign yourself to an article as reviewer, you must have a user account on this site (if you don't have one, register for a free account here) and be logged in (please verify that your email address in your profile is correct). Add yourself as a peer reviewer to any article by clicking the '+Peer-review Me!+' link under each article. Full instructions on how to complete your review will be sent to you via email shortly after. Do not sign up as peer-reviewer if you have any conflicts of interest (note that we will treat any attempts by authors to sign up as reviewer under a false identity as scientific misconduct and reserve the right to promptly reject the article and inform the host institution).
The standard turnaround time for reviews is currently 2 weeks, and the general aim is to give constructive feedback to the authors and/or to prevent publication of uninteresting or fatally flawed articles. Reviewers will be acknowledged by name if the article is published, but remain anonymous if the article is declined.

The abstracts on this page are unpublished studies - please do not cite them (yet). If you wish to cite them/wish to see them published, write your opinion in the form of a peer-review!

Tip: Include the RSS feed of the JMIR submissions on this page on your iGoogle homepage, blog, or desktop RSS reader to stay informed about current submissions!

JMIR Submissions under Open Peer Review

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

If you follow us on Twitter, we will also announce new submissions under open peer-review there.

Titles/Abstracts of Articles Currently Open for Review

Titles/Abstracts of Articles Currently Open for Review:

  • Background: Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. Objective: This study aimed to discover and compare the awareness level of radiation doses, protection issues, and risks among radiology staff in Jeddah hospitals. Methods: A cross-sectional survey containing 25 questions on personal information and various aspects of radiation exposure doses and risks was designed using an online survey tool and the link was emailed to all radiology staff in eight tertiary hospitals in Jeddah. The authors were excluded from the study. A P-value of < .05 was used to identify statistical significance. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 21. Results: Out of 156 participants the majority 151 (96.8%) had poor knowledge score, where the mean scores were 2.4±1.3 for doses knowledge, 2.1±1.1for cancer risks knowledge, 2.3±0.6 for general information, and 6.7±1.9 for the total score. Only 34.6% of the participants were aware of the dosage of a single-view chest x-ray, and 9.0% chose the right answer for the approximate effective dose received by a patient in a two-view. 42.9% were able to know the correct dose of CT abdomen single phase. There is a significant underestimation of cancer risk of CT studies especially for CT abdomen where only 23.7% knew the right risk. A p-value of <0.05 was used to identify statistical significance. No significant difference of knowledge score was detected regarding gender (P =.2) or work position (P=.66). Conclusions: Our survey results show considerable inadequate knowledge in all groups without exception. We recommended a conscientious effort to deliver more solid education and obtain more knowledge in these matters and providing periodic training courses to teach how to minimize the dose of radiation and to avoid risk related. Clinical Trial: not applicable

  • Practices and Attitudes Towards Patient E-Communication and Social Media Use Amongst Neurology Providers

    Date Submitted: Apr 12, 2019
    Open Peer Review Period: Apr 20, 2019 - Jun 15, 2019

    Background: E-communication is increasingly being utilized in healthcare but there is limited research investigating the practices and attitudes of providers towards the use of these tools in professional settings. Objective: To assess the experiences, attitudes, and practices of neurology healthcare providers, regarding e-communication contact with patients and social media (SM) use. Methods: Two surveys assessing patient e-communication and SM use were disseminated by e-mail to subscribers of NeuroSens, an online educational platform. Results: 67% and 27% of respondents completely opposed patient contact to their personal mobile and e-mail respectively, while the remaining respondents believed propriety was situation-dependent. Respondents tolerant to patient contact were more likely to have been contacted for urgent matters in the past. Most respondents (54%) used at least one of the main SM networks, and 76% denied having posted inappropriate content. The majority of respondents (74%) were unfamiliar with any SM policy within their practicing institution and the vast majority (98%) agreed clinical institutions need to establish updated e-communication policies. Conclusions: Neurology healthcare providers demonstrate conservative practices and perceptions of SM use and patient e-communication, despite limited institutional guidance. With the continued growth of e-communications tools, there is a strong need to for clinical institutions to establish policies to support the use of these applications within healthcare.