Sunday, July 30, 2006


O’Grady Laura. 2006. Future directions for depicting credibility in health care web sites. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 75 (1):58-65
The purpose of the paper was to determine a theoretical framework by which credibility in health care web sites can be depicted. A comprehensive literature review of published articles, policy papers, and grey literature using relevant search terms was conducted. Sources for articles reviewed included MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) databases. The Web of Science citation service and Google were also implemented. The common term, credibility, was purposed for use in this context. A comprehensive set of credibility criteria, was also developed. Conclusions pointed out that relevancy and readiness of the purposed common terminology, criteria, and implementation within the theoretical framework must be further researched.


Bonetta Laura. 2006 The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud. Cell. 124 (5):873-875
When a retraction is published it appears in PubMed linked to the original paper, thereby alerting scientists to the problem, however, retracted papers continue to be cited in the scientific literature at rates comparable to those for nonretracted papers. Being the coauthor of a paper that is retracted can be very damaging. Scientists who have come face to face with scientific misconduct consider its consequences years later.Cases of possible scientific misconduct involving research funded by the NIH and other agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are brought to the attention of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Most countries outside the United States do not have an independent institute like ORI dedicated to handling scientific misconduct.

Friday, July 28, 2006


Frank, Martin. 2006.Access to the Scientific Literature - A Difficult Balance. New England Journal of Medicine. 354(15):1552-1555

In reviewing the case for open access, it makes more sense to focus readers' attention on ways of increasing access, rather than holding to a strict line on whether a journal article, a journal, or a publisher, for that matter, is open or closed. A commitment to the value and quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit by it. What follows on this principle, given the current transformation of journals from print to online formats, is that researchers, scholarly societies, publishers, and research libraries have now to ask themselves whether or not they are using this new technology to do as much as can be done to advance and improve access to research and scholarship.

Dipak Kalra, Renate Gertz, Peter Singleton, Hazel M Inskip. 2006. Confidentiality and consent in medical research: Confidentiality of personal health information used for research BMJ ;333:196-198, doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7560.196

Researchers must balance the quest for better health for all against the need to respect the privacy of research participants. In this article, Kalra and colleagues look at what needs to be done to ensure best practice. Several areas of research practice need to be improved, and staff training and access policies are essential, but firstly the main contemporary public concerns must be recognised and understood, they say.

Thursday, July 27, 2006





ETHICAL ISSUES, including Misconduct and fraud




PRACTICE OF PUBLISHING, including Models of publishing; Metadata; Peer review