-
B – The gender gap in authorship16 February 2012Shields L, Hall J, Mamun AA. The “gender gap” in authorship in nursing literature. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2011;104(11):457-464(doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110015) There is gender bias in authorship in nursing journals in the UK similar to that observed in medicine, with more men than women as first or senior authors of articles. Despite the […]
-
B – Gap in access to scholarly content16 February 2012Research Information Network (RIN), Publishing Research Consortium (PRC), Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Access to scholarly content: gaps and barriers. December 2011 This report investigates and quantifies the extent to which members of different communities in the UK can gain ready access to formally-published scholarly literature, in particular journal articles and conference proceedings. The findings […]
-
B – The SOAP Project16 February 2012Dallmeier-Tiessen S, Darby R, Goerner B, et al. Open access journals – what publishers offer, what researchers want. Information Services & Uses 2011;31:85-91(doi: 10.3233/ISU-2011-0624) This article describes the SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) project, that analyzed the current supply and demand situation in the open access (OA) journal landscape. Several sources of data were […]
-
B – Reporting guidelines for survey research15 February 2012Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PloS Medicine 2011;8(8):e1001069(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069) The authors identified any previous relevant guidance and any evidence on the quality of reporting of survey research. The results of their study showed that guidance is limited and consensus […]
-
B – Reporting guidelines for health research15 February 2012Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(7):718-742(doi: 10.1016/j.clinepi.2010.09.013) This review article describes the process of development, content, and methods of implementation of 81 reporting guidelines for health research. The results of the review indicate that guideline developers do not report […]
-
B – Why science struggles to correct its mistakes14 February 2012Zimmer C. It’s science, but not necessarily right. The New York Times June 25, 2011 As a series of controversies have recently demonstrated, science fixes its mistakes not so rapidly and fitfully. It usually takes a lot of time to look back over other scientists’ work and replicate their experiments. Even when scientists rerun an […]
-
B – Missing clinical trial data14 February 2012Lehman R, Loder E. Missing clinical trial data. British Medical Journal 2012;344:d8158(doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8158) A large proportion of evidence from human trials is unreported, and much of what is reported is done inadequately. Missing data about harm in trials can harm patients, and incomplete data about benefit can lead to futile costs to healthy systems. Some […]
-
B – Copyright of clinical tools14 February 2012Newman JC, Feldman R. Copyright and open access at the bedside. The New England Journal of Medicine 2011;365:2447-2449 What can researchers do to ensure that other colleagues can use clinician tools they developed to improve patient care? A good solution is that authors provide explicit permissive licensing, ideally with a form of copyleft. Any new […]
-
B – Peerage of Science: a publishing revolution?14 February 2012Fowler M. Peerage of Science: a publishing revolution? Theoretically Speaking Nature.com blog Jan 16, 2012 The increasing number of scientists is coupled with a pressure to publish more (often smaller units of) science. This increases the burden on peer reviewers in different ways. Peerage of Science (POS) is a new initiative that aims to improve […]
-
B – Sharing research data to improve public health14 February 2012Walport M, Brest P. Sharing research data to improve public health. The Lancet 2011;337(9765):537-539(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62234-9) A group of major international funders of public health research have committed to work together to increase the availability of data emerging from their funded research, in order to accelerate advances in public health. A joint statement of purpose sets […]
-
B – Goodbye PubMed, hello raw data14 February 2012Godlee F. Goodbye PubMed, hello raw data. British Medical Journal 2011;342:d212(doi: 10.1136/bmj.d212) According to the Cochrane team, reviewers must have access to all unpublished data, not only from unpublished trials but also from those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Reviewers must assess entire trial programmes, and if trial reports are incomplete, they […]
-
B – The value of data13 February 2012Barend M, van Haagen H, Chichester C et al. The value of data. Nature Genetics 2011;43(4):281-283(doi: 10.1038/ng0411-281) Data citation and the derivation of semantic constructs directly from datasets have now both found their place in scientific communication. The data-intensive sciences call for innovative ways of data sharing, stewardship and valuation. This article proposes a new […]
