Monday, September 22, 2014

B - Wikipedia citations in journal articles

Tohidinasab F, Jamali HR. Why and where Wikipedia is cited in journal articles? Journal of Scientometric Research 2013;2(3):231-238
(doi: 10.4103/2320-0057.135415)

This research aimed to identify the motivations for citation to Wikipedia in scientific papers. Also, the number of citation to Wikipedia, location of citation, type of citing papers, subject of citing and cited articles were determined and compared in different subject fields. Results showed that there are 20 motivations for citing Wikipedia and the most frequent of them are providing general information and definition, facts and figures. Citations to Wikipedia often appear in the introduction or introductory sections of papers. Computer sciences, internet and chemistry are the most cited subjects. The use of Wikipedia in articles is increasing both in terms of quantity and diversity
http://www.jscires.org/article.asp?issn=2320-0057;year=2013;volume=2;issue=3;spage=231;epage=238;aulast=Tohidinasab

B - Science publishing in Russia

Teixeira da Silva JA, Lukatkin AS. Challenges to research, science writing and publishing in Russia. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 2013;7(1):66-71

Traditionally, Russian researchers write articles in Russian. They tend to publish articles in a leading Russian journal as it is much easier than to attempt to publish in an English-based journal. This paper provides some perspectives as to the rationale and challenges that Russian scientists face when publishing in high ranked international journals. They are influenced by cultural and structural limitations.
http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/13AAJPSB_7_SI1.html

B - The Kardashian index

Hall N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 2014;15:424
(doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0)

The author proposes the "Kardashian index" (from the name of one of the most followed people on twitter), a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and twitter followers. He has compared the numbers of followers that research scientists have on twitter with the number of citations they have for their peer-reviewed work.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1186%2Fs13059-014-0424-0

B - Publication bias in social sciences

Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014;345(6203):1502-1505
(doi: 10.1126/science.1255484)

The authors examined every study since 2002 that was funded by TESS (Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences),  a national grants programme adopting a rigorous peer review for proposals submitted. They found a strong relationship between the results of a study and whether it was published, a pattern indicative of publication bias. Selective reporting of scientific findings is often referred to as the "file drawer" problem. Although around half of the total studies in the sample were published, only 20% of those with null results appeared in print. In contrast, about 60% of studies with strong results and 50% of those with mixed results were published What is perhaps most striking is not that so few null results are published, but that so many of them are never even written up (65%).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25170047

Friday, September 19, 2014

B - Social media use by medical students

Harrison B, Gill J, Jalali A. Social media etiquette for the modern medical student: a narrative review. International Journal of Medical Students 2014;2(2):64-67

Most medical students worldwide are using various social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) for file sharing, circulation of educational resources and staying connected with peers.  This narrative review examines social media use by medical students, with a concentration on online professionalism and how education on the topic is, or should be, integrated into the world-wide medical school curricula. The research shows that there is a potentially dangerous dichotomy between the online social lives of modern medical students and professionalism requirements of medical career for which they are training.
http://www.ijms.info/ojs/index.php/IJMS/article/view/72/html_42#.VBxCUP9xkuQ

B - Peer review for RCT

Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 2014;12:128
(doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z)

Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality.  Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), may lend themselves to a more specialized form of peer review where training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation is provided to individuals who peer review RCTs. Any randomized controlled trial peer reviewed by such a trained peer reviewer could then have a searchable ‘quality assurance’ symbol attached to the published articles and any published peer reviewer reports.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/128

B - Impact factor mania

Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014;5(2):e00064-14 
(doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14)

Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value of research with the journal where the work is published rather than the content of the work itself. The authors consider the reasons for the persistence of impact factor mania and its pernicious effects on science. They conclude that impact factor mania persists because it confers significant benefits to individual scientists and journals. Various measures to reduce the influence of the impact factor are considered.      
http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/2/e00064-14.full
              
 
 

B - An example of unethical behaviour

Masic I. A new example of unethical behavior in the academic journal "Medical Archives". Medical Archives 2014;68(4):228-230
(doi: 10.5455/medarh.2014.68.228.230)

A recent case of unethical behaviour by authors who have submitted their article in the Medical Archives is described in this Editorial. The same article was submitted to another journal and then retracted and sent to "Retraction Watch". Considerations on plagiarism and other forms of unethical behaviour in a scientific publication are also expressed.
http://www.academia.edu/7849262/A_New_Example_of_Unethical_Behavior_in_the_Academic_Journal_Medical_Archives_


B - Plagiarism and ethics

Jamali R, Ghazinoory S, Sadeghi M. Plagiarism and ethics of knowledge. Journal of Information Ethics 2014;23(1):101-110
(doi: 10.3172/JIE.23.1.101)

This study aims to investigate whether there is any difference between plagiarism volumes in different fields of study in Iran. Specifically, if there is any significant difference between these statistics among five countries, namely Iran, USA, Turkey, Australia and China. The results show that there was no trace of plagiarism in 6 out of 27 fields under consideration for Iranian papers. Most cases of plagiarism were reported in three scientific fields, with medicine on top of the list. The paper suggest that more frequent instances of plagiarism in Iranian articles are due to the unawareness of the international standards of science writing and editing.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263768675_Plagiarism_and_Ethics_of_Knowledge_Evidence_from_International_Scientific_Papers

B - Scholarly publishing trends 2014

Smart P. The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014. Science Editing 2014;1(2):52-57
(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.52)

This article considers the changes that have happened recently to the scholarly journal environment, starting with the changes in research and development and the influence of the emerging economies. It then considers the financial models and the serials crisis that led to the movement for more open access to research and greater involvement of the academic community. It looks at the ethical issues that have beset the recent years, and the new technologies that promise more efficient and ethical publishing. There is particular concern about some of the new publishers who are not adhering to established quality control and ethical practices.
http://escienceediting.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.6087/kcse.2014.1.52

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

B - Science transparency

Denegri S, Faure H. It's plain and simple: transparency is good for science and in the public interest. Trials 2013;14:215
(doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-215)

In the past couple of years, there has been a growing focus on the need to make scientific output accessible to a greater number of people, especially in the field of clinical research. The public are being urged to become more well-informed and to ask their doctors about taking part in clinical trials.
All recent initiatives demonstrate that there are still a number of challenges in making current research both accessible and understandable by prospective participants. It is necessary to improve ‘signposting’, to direct the public to the information. Plain English summaries are seen as a good idea but very few people are willing to pay for improved content.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735400/

B - Lay summaries of OA articles

Nunn E, Pinfield S. Lay summaries of open access journal articles: engaging with the general public on medical research. Learned Publishing 2014;27(3):173-184
(doi: 10.1087/20140303)

This study investigates attitudes towards the addition of  lay summaries to open-access journal articles in the context of engaging the public with medical research. In particular, the perspectives of two stakeholder groups were analysed:  employees of organisations with a stake in communicating OA medical research to the public, and members of the public who have experience of accessing online medical research.
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/79609/1/Lay%20summaries%20LP%20final.pdf

B - Periodicals price survey 2014

Bosch S, Henderson K. Steps down the evolutionary road. Periodicals price survey 2014. Library Journal April 2014

The article discusses the serials and scholarly publishing industry as of April 2014, focusing on the authors' identification of trends impacting use and pricing in the field according to data from the Periodicals Price Survey 2014. Topics include the library industry's recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, average price changes across serial categories, and a reduction in print orders. On the basis of the survey the average prices for science, technology, and medical (STM) serials remain the highest, compared with prices for serials in other subject areas.
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/04/publishing/steps-down-the-evolutionary-road-periodicals-price-survey-2014/#_

B - Recommended procedures for retracting articles

Gilliver S. Recommended procedures for retracting articles: inadequate or patchily applied? Analysis of a recent article in PLoS One examining the fates of retracted articles. Medical Writing 2014;23(2):122-124
(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z000000000202)

In several cases, many articles, that are found to have broken ethics rules, have been linked to a single researcher. A 2014 study published in PLoS One sought to determine whether 88 articles by one of the worst known offenders were retracted as recommended and, if so, whether their retraction conformed to the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and other recommended practices.
http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000202

B - The impact of retraction

Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics e-pub March 2014
(doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1)

This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. The findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18% of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10% of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24668038

B - Retractions of scientific publications

Katavić V. Retractions of scientific publications: responsibility and accountability. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):217-222
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.024)  

This evidence-based opinion piece gives a short overview of the increase in retractions of publications in scientific journals and discusses various reasons for that increase. Also discussed are some of the recent prominent cases of scientific misconduct, the number of authors with multiple retractions, and problems with reproducibility of published research.
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2014/24/217

B - Quality of author guidelines

Nambiar R, Tilak P, Cerejo C. Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. Learned Publishing 2014;27(3):201-209  
(doi: 10.1087/20140306)

This article aimed to assess quantitatively the completeness and clarity of author guidelines of 80 international English-language journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. No journal scored 100% for completeness and clarity. While author guidelines of many journals adequately address some essential aspects of manuscript preparation and submission, they often do not provide all the information needed as clearly as possible. 'Formatting instructions' was the most complete and clear category, and 'authorship' the least complete and clear category.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2014/00000027/00000003/art00006?token=004c1424dc00437a63736a6f7c47744748662525452e566f644a467c79675d7c4e724770abfa

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

B - Publishing ethics

Abdollahi M, Gasparyan AY, Saeidnia S. The urge to publish more and its consequences. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2014;22:53
(doi:  10.1186/2008-2231-22-53)

Uncovered cases of misconduct and violation of publication ethics are increasing at rapid pace due to the digitization and open access movement in the last two decades. Large amount of funding for research, publishing and archiving activities comes from pharmaceutical agencies, supporting individuals and their research and academic institutions. These are obliged to educate their authors and to inform about publishing ethics and consequences of biased and fraudulent publications. Reviewers and science editors, in turn, have to carefully evaluate correctness of research data and transparency of authorship, contributorship, and disclosures of ethical approvals, funding, and conflicts of interests.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4080727/

B - Publication ethics in Iranian journals

Koushan M, Pejhan A, Shomoossi N, et al. Ethical considerations in publishing medical articles in Iranian journals. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis 2014;31(2):105-111
(doi: 10.2478/afmnai-2014-0012)

This study intends to investigate ethical issues in sticking to publication ethics in major medical journals of Iranian universities published in 2011 and 2012. The results indicated that some ethical considerations are ignored in publishing medical articles: a great majority of articles did not state the approval of research committees and some did not disclose the conflict of interests and the financial support providers. The authors discussed some reasons why these deviations occurr and provided some practical suggestions.
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/de-gruyter/ethical-considerations-in-publishing-medical-articles-in-iranian-Llrbo8RWFL

B - Publishing strategies

Dai N, Xu D, Zhong X, et al.  Build infrastructure in publishing scientific journals to benefit medical scientists. Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 2014;26(1):119-123
(doi: 10.3978/issn.1000-9604.2014.02.10)

Medical journals should optimize their publishing processes and strategies to satisfy the huge need for medical scientists to publish their articles, and then obtain better prestige and impact in scientific and research community. These strategies include optimizing the process of peer-review, utilizing open-access publishing models actively, finding ways of saving costs and getting revenue, smartly dealing with research fraud or misconduct, maintaining sound relationship with pharmaceutical companies, and managing to provide relevant and useful information for clinical practitioners and researchers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937756/

B - Creative Commons and open access

Carroll MW. Creative Commons and the openness of open access. The New England Journal of Medicine 2013;368:789-791
(doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1300040)

The Internet has changed the economics of publication and digital-resource sharing. Copyright law supplies the baseline terms of use for almost all information on the Internet. These terms can be altered if the copyright owner grants a license or permission to do something that would otherwise infringe copyright. Creative Commons licenses are the most widely used of these public licenses for all kinds of copyrighted works except software, for which free and open-source licenses are most common.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300040

B - Peer review and visibility

Lortie CJ, Allesina S, Aarssen L, et al. With great power comes great responsibility: the importance of rejection, power, and editors in the practice of scientific publishing. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e85382
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085382)

The authors used data from the handling service manuscript Central for ten mid-tier ecology and evolution journals to test whether number of external reviews completed improved citation rates for all accepted manuscripts. Results showed that citation rates of manuscripts do not correlate with the number of individuals that provided reviews. This study aimed also to explore whether editor-only review is a viable peer review model.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085382

Monday, July 28, 2014

B - Good clinical practice

Berghammer G. Good clinical practice (GPC): a universal call for ethics in biomedical research. Medical Writing 2014; 23(2):106-112
(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000209)  

Today, the principles of good clinical practice (GCP) form an integral part of the development of new medicines. GPC provides an international ethical and scientific quality standard designed to protect the rights and safety of individuals consenting to participate in clinical trials and to ensure the integrity and credibility of clinical research data. This article traces the historical roots of GCP and takes a look at the role GCP principles play in the life of the medical writer. 
http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000209

B - Study design in biomedical and health research

Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):199-210
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.022)

The appropriate choice in study design is essential for the quality, execution, and interpretation of biomedical and public health research. Observational study designs, also called epidemiologic study designs, are often retrospective and are used to assess potential causation in exposure-outcome relationships and therefore influence preventive methods. Interventional studies are often prospective and are specifically tailored to evaluate direct impacts of treatment or preventive measures on disease.
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2014/24/199

B - Authorship attitudes and practice in Norway

Nylenna M, Fagerbakk F, Kierulf P. Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics 2014;15:53
(doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-53)

The authors studied attitudes to, and practice of, authorship among researchers in a university hospital and medical school in Norway. Reserchers, who responded to a questionnaire, had knowledge of formal authorship requirements. Most of them agreed with the criteria, but found it harder to put them into practice, and had experienced breaches. More experienced researchers found it easier to put authorship recommendations into practice than less experienced researchers.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/53/abstract

B - Plagiarism and retraction

Chaddah P. Not all plagiarism requires a retraction. Nature 2014;511(7508):127
(doi: 10.1038/511127a)

It is important to appreciate why scientists may indulge in the three forms of plagiarism (text plagiarism, ideas plagiarism, and results plagiarism), that the author discusses in this article. According to him, papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected. Such plagiarism is unethical, but the originality of ideas more than of language should be valued.
http://www.nature.com/news/not-all-plagiarism-requires-a-retraction-1.15517

B - English for medical purposes

Salager-Meyer F. Origin and development of English for Medical Purposes. Part II: Research on spoken medical English. Medical Writing 2014;23(2):129-131
(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000204)

This second part of the review on English for Medical Purposes (EMP) presents the main results of a  research on spoken interaction in medical settings. The first group of studies focused on improving the English language skills of non-Anglophone medical students and health professionals;  the second one consisted in linguistic analysis of medical conference presentations; and the third research analyzed the literature on healthcare (doctor-patient) communication, These three categories were discussed.
http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000204?journalCode=mew

Thursday, June 26, 2014

B - Publication in PNAS

Aldhous P. The inside track. Nature 2014;510:330-332

Members of the US National Academy of Sciences have an inside track to publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal as they can submit up to four papers per year. This article examined the contributed track, both to assess its scientific impact and to see which members use it most heavily and why. Results showed that only a small number of scientists have used the track to the maximum allowable rate while most of them published on average fewer than one paper per year. Direct submissions are much less likely to be accepted than those contributed by academy members. Nevertheless, the journal seems to make progress trying to eliminate the abuse of publishing privileges.
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside-track-1.15424

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

B - Mistakes in manuscripts on education and rejection




The goal of this study was to identify common mistakes made in research study manuscripts submitted to journals of Education and the effects of these mistakes on rejection by the journal editors and referees. An online questionnaire was developed for this purpose and sent to the editors and referees of Turkish journals of Education indexed in SSCI and ULAKBIM. The results show that researchers mostly make mistakes in the discussion, conclusion, and suggestions part of the manuscripts. However, mistakes made in the methods part are the most significant causes of manuscript rejection.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-013-1137-y

B - Defining and responding to plagiarism

Wager E. Defining and responding to plagiarism. Learned Publishing 2014;27(1):33-42
(doi: 10.1087/20140105)

A clear definition of plagiarism and the ability to classify it into more or less serious forms would help editors and publishers to devise policies to handle this problem. This article considers factors such as the originality of the copied material, its position in the report, the adequacy of referencing, and the intention of the authors as well as the extent of the copying. and proposes possible definitions of major and minor plagiarism in relation to scholarly publications which might be used as the basis for anti-plagiarism policies in conjunction with resources such as the COPE flowcharts.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2014/00000027/00000001/art00005

B - Upgrading instructions for authors

Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, et al. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croatian Medical Journal 2014;55:271-280
(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2014.55.271)

Journal instructions are important and need to be properly structured, linked to the available guidelines from editorial associations, and regularly revised and enforced to avoid unethical and erroneous publications. They should inform authors about the journal’s scope, priority articles, peer review policy, code of publishing ethics, structure and content of different types of accepted articles, in-house style of editing and formatting, and accompanying documents required for each submission. Properly written, printed, and available online instructions are the keys to successful publishing and indexing in prestigious bibliographic databases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049215/

B - Review of Wikipedia citations in health science literature

Bould MD. Hladkowicz ES, Pigford AE, et al. References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature. BMJ 2014;348:g1585
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1585)

An increasing number of peer reviewed academic papers in health sciences are citing Wikipedia. This article evaluates the prevalence of Wikipedia citations in indexed health science journals, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. The relationship between academic publication and Wikipedia remains largely understudied, and international guidelines lack editorial guidance on how this resource should be used. Wikipedia is often cited when permanent, evidence based sources are available. The authors suggest that editors and reviewers insist on citing primary sources of information where possible.
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1585

B - Citation increments between collaborating countries


(doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0797-3)

International collaboration enhances citation impact. Collaborating with a country increments the citations received from it. The authors observed a certain tendency for these increments to be lower in countries with greater impacts, and differences in the behaviour of the countries between the various scientific disciplines, with the effects being greatest in Social Sciences, followed by Engineering.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-012-0797-3

B - Internet publicity of data problems and corrective actions

Brookes PS. Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action. PeerJ 2014;2:e313
(doi: 10.7717/peerj.313)

Data integrity is a common discussion topic, and it is widely assumed that publicity surrounding such matters accelerates correction of the scientific record. This study aims to verify whether such public discussion of data integrity has actually had any effect. The results show that it is correlated with greater levels of subsequent actions to correct the scientific record by enhancing the motivation of journals, authors or institutions.
https://peerj.com/articles/313/



B - Ethics of scholarly publishing

Amos KA. The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2014;102(2):87-91
(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005)

This study explored national differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication in retracted biomedical literature. The national affiliations of authors and reasons for retraction of papers accessible through PubMed that were published from 2008 to 2012 and subsequently retracted were determined. While the United States retracted the most papers, China retracted the most papers for plagiarism and duplicate publication. Rates of plagiarism and duplicate publication were highest in Italy and Finland, respectively. Unethical publishing practices cut across nations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988779/



B - Privacy protectionism and health information

Allen J, Holman CD, Meslin EM, et al. Privacy protectionism and health information: is there any redress for harms to health? Journal of Law and Medicine 2013;21(2):473-485

Health information collected by governments can be a valuable resource for researchers seeking to improve diagnostics, treatments and public health outcomes. This article examines the legal, ethical and structural context in which data custodians make decisions about the release of data for research. It considers the impact of those decisions on individuals. While there is strong protection against risks to privacy and multiple avenues of redress, there is no redress where harms result from a failure to release data for research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597394

B - Science journalism

Watts S. Society needs more than wonder to respect science. Nature 2014;508(7495):151
(doi:10.1038/508151a)

According to the author, there is a fundamental difference between science communication and science journalism: researchers are well placed to explain concepts, but journalists will bring the critical scrutiny needed to integrate science in society. Science journalism should weigh up the values and vices of science. A journalist needs to be persistent and brave enough to find out things that people don't want the world to know.
http://www.nature.com/news/society-needs-more-than-wonder-to-respect-science-1.15012

B - Editorial research and publication process

Marušić A, Malički M, von Elm E. Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):211-216
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.023) 

The article presents results from a discussion group of editors and experts organized by the Esteve Foundation. They included findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. They also reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. They concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish.
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2014/24/211