-
B – Public perception of clinical trials22 July 2010Ohman EM, Roe MT, Armstrong PW, et al. Public sensationalism and clinical trials: how to address the challenges of science? American Journal of Medicine 2010;123:481-483. http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934309011504/fulltext Ensuring that clinical trials proceed rationally and without sensationalism will help to better determine the risk and benefits of the therapy under investigation. There needs to be trust and […]
-
B – Changing ethos of medical publications22 July 2010Kojima T, Barron JP. Changes in the ethos of medical publications as reflected in progressive alterations in the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (1979-2008). Chest 2010;137:1479-1482. doi 10.1378/chest.09-3024
-
N – Steering a middle course22 July 2010A new journal, Hypotheses in the Life Sciences, will publish papers that introduce new ideas in biology that “advance or challenge scientific thinking”. The papers will be chosen primarily with the guidance of the editorial board, which includes the recently fired editor-in-chief of Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses. The journal was set up after Elsevier decided […]
-
B – Publication bias in stroke studies20 July 2010Sena1 ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, et al. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biology 2010;8:e1000344. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 The existence and impact of publication bias in laboratory sciences was explored using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) […]
-
N – New group tackles European copyright15 July 2010The European Network for Copyright in Support of Education and Science (ENCES) has been set up to lobby for changes in European copyright law in support of education and science. ENCES believes that despite the ever increasing availability and accessibility of information, “copyright regimes increasingly erect artificial borders that get in the way of scientific […]
-
N – Scandinavian open access initiatives14 July 2010Three Scandinavian institutions have recently proposed open access (OA) policies. Sweden’s Royal Library (Kungliga biblioteket, KB) promises to provide immediate open access to digital versions of all material by KB employees published in magazines and journals. Another Swedish body, the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Riksbank Tercentenary Foundation), now requires all grant-funded work to be open access, and […]
-
N – PLoS ignores impact factors14 July 2010The Public Library of Science (PLoS) has decided “to stop promoting journal impact factors on our sites altogether. It’s time to move on, and focus efforts on more sophisticated, flexible and meaningful measures.” The statement, published on the PLoS Blog, follows the release of the 2008 impact factor data, showing significant increases for all PLoS’s […]
-
B – Assessing sincerity of misconduct apologies14 July 2010Souder L. A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it? Science and Engineering Ethics 2010;16:175-184. http://www.springerlink.com/content/695602346198p00j Published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct can be sincere or ritualistic. By comparing published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct, it’s possible to assess whether the apology was sincere or […]
-
B – Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias?8 July 2010Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One 2010; 5(4): e10271(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010271) The growing competition culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published […]
-
B – Bridging the divide between science and journalism8 July 2010Van Eperen L, Marincola FM, Strohm J. Bridging the divide between science and journalism. Journal of Translational Medicine 2010;8:25(doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-8-25) It is important for scientists and journalists to bridge the communication divide that exists between them. Scientists should know how to communicate their latest findings through the appropriate channels. Reducing years of research into a […]
-
B – Health research reporting guidelines8 July 2010Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLos Med. 2010 February; 7(2):e1000217(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217) The authors of this article believe that nowadays the quality of reporting in most health care journals is inadequate. Many publications lack clarity, transparency, and completeness in how the authors actually carried out […]
-
B – Medical ghostwriting8 July 2010Lacasse JR, Leo J. Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Med. 2010 February;7(2): e1000230(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230) Medical ghostwriting, the practice of pharmaceutical companies secretly authoring journal articles published under the byline of academic researchers, is a threat to public health. In 2009 the Institute of Medicine recommended the US-based academic medical […]
