-
B – Public availability of data sharing26 June 2015Aleixandre-Benavent R, Vidal-Infer A, Alonso Arroyo A, et al. Public availability of published research data in substance abuse journals. International Journal of Drug Policy 2014;25(6):1143-1146(doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.07.007) The aim of this study is to analyse the open-data policies concerning the availability of papers and raw data of the scientific research journals listed in the substance abuse […]
-
B – Head-to-head RCTs and industry sponsor26 June 2015Flacco ME, Manzoli L, Boccia S, et al. Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015;68(7):811-820(doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.016) To map the current status of head-to-head comparative evidence, the authors analyzed a large sample of recently published head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) covering a wide range of clinical […]
-
B – Beyond the impact factor?26 June 2015Fazel S, Lamsma J. Beyond the impact factor? Evidence Based Mental Health 2015;18:33-35(doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102087) To investigate the possible differences between the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and new journal metrics, the authors ranked the top 30 journals in the clinical neurosciences (ie, psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and general medicine) based on their JIF and compared their JIF ranking […]
-
B – Identifying legitimate OA journals17 June 2015Hill T. Identifying legitimate open access journals: some suggestions from a publisher. Learned Publishing 2015;28(1):59-62(doi: 10.1087/20150109) The author provides a set of criteria by which authors and readers can distinguish legitimate open access journals from illegitimate ones. The list is short, but at the same time applicable to a wide range of journals. The criteria refer […]
-
B – Reporting guidelines17 June 2015Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB. Researchers, Readers, and reporting guidelines. Writing between the lines. JAMA 2015; 313(16):1625-26(doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3837) Recognizing the potential value of reporting guidelines for the peer review and scientific publication processes, JAMA published several of the initial guidelines, including CONSORT and MOOSE. A guideline checklist assists editors in their assessment of submitted manuscripts; makes it […]
-
B – Editorial independence17 June 2015Bipeta R. Editorial independence in biomedical publishing. Andhra Pradesh Journal of Psychological Medicine 2014;15(2):145-9 The author summarized the published literature related to editorial independence. Editors should ensure that they are not influenced in their decision making. The sole criterion for publication should be merit, and editors should not be biased in their choice. All stakeholders should be […]
-
B – Ethical ambiguity in physics17 June 2015Ecklund E, Howard J , David R, et al. Study highlights ethical ambiguity in physics. Physics Today 2015;68(6):8-10.As part of a study entitled “Ethics among physicists in cross-national context” the authors interviewed 170 physicists at US and UK universities and the results suggest that ethical issues in physics are not as black and white as many physicists […]
-
B – Reporting systematic reviews of IPD16 June 2015Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA 2015;313(16):1657-65(doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3656) PRISMA-IPD (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data) is an extension of the PRISMA Statement, tailored to specific requirements of individual participant data (IPD). The […]
-
B – “Living figures” make their debut16 June 2015Singh Chawla D. “Living figures” make their debut. Nature 2015;521(7550):112. (doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.17382) The living figure concept fits within a central tenet of F1000’s publishing philosophy, that papers can be continually updated. The online-only open-access site publishes articles immediately with the status ‘Awaiting Peer Review’, then invites scientists to review them and post their data. Authors […]
-
B – Plain English in medical writing1 April 2015Reeves A. Time to make it shorter: plain English in our context. Medical Writing 2015;24(1):4-8(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000268) This article explores the relevance of George Orwell’s six rules for clear writing, that he published in 1946, to medical writing. It makes recommendations how to apply them, and adds further rules to contribute to plain English.http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000268
-
B – Declaration of transparency1 April 2015Catalá-López F, Peiró S, Hutton B, et al. Declaration of transparency: promoting a more complete, honest and adequate publication of scientific articles. Revista Española de Salud Pública 2014;88(2):181-186(doi: 10.4321/S1135-57272014000200001) To prevent and detect inappropriate conduct in scientific research, the authors of this article suggest to include a “transparency declaration” from the correspondent author when submitting […]
-
B – Bibliographical support on quality of medical care30 March 2015Pastori MM, Sarti M, Pons, M, et al. Assessing the impact of bibliographical support on the quality of medical care in patients admitted to an internal medicine service: a prospective clinical, open, randomised two-arm parallel study. Evidence-Based Medicine 2014;19:163-168(doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110021) Some research studies suggest that library services professionally provided have an impact on health outcomes for […]
