Wednesday, December 29, 2010

B - How to collaborate with medical communicators

Hamilton CW. Don't get spooked! How to collaborate with a professional medical communicator (and avoid ghostwriting). Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 2010;58(4):255-61

The article reviews relevant guidelines and provides practical tips for authors interested in collaborating with medical communicators (i.e. medical writers and editors). It addresses a series of questions, such as what to expect from medical communicators, how to evaluate them, and how to collaborate ethically and efficiently with them.

B - Publishers and point-of-care information services

Moja L. Banzi R. Navigators for medicine: evolution of point-of-care evidence-based services. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2011;65(1):6-11
(doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02441.x)

The publishers' mission is changing: the traditional medicine journal publishing trials and reviews in general is perceived as too static and remote from practice. Now publishers are re-focusing their efforts towards "information hubs" in which several information kits widely connected with other informatics systems can be assembled. Publishers should find a balance between information consumed at the point of care and fidelity to a cumulative and extended approach to information. Final users should value both dimensions: the action "what to do" and the reference content "why we do".

Friday, December 17, 2010

B - Disclosure of competing interests

Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden M, Sahni P. et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. JAMA 2010;303(1):75-6

Disclosure of conflict of interests by authors of articles published in biomedical journals has become common practice. The information included in these disclosures helps the reader to understand the relationships between the authors and various commercial entities that may have an interest in the article contents. This editorial is published simultaneously in all journals that are members of the ICMJE announcing a new disclosure format that will be used by all of them.

B - How to review journal manuscripts

Rosenfeld RM. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2010;142(4):472-86
(doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010)

Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review. A common complaint by nearly all journal editors is the difficulty in finding competent reviewers to assess an increasing volume of submitted manuscripts. Topics covered in this article include: responding to a review invitation, crafting comments to editors and authors, offering a recommended disposition, dealing with revised manuscripts, and understanding roles and responsibilities.

B - Research integrity and publication ethics

Beisiegel U. Research integrity and publication ethics. Atherosclerosis 2010; 212(2):383-5
(doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.01.050)

This commentary describes the international problem of research integrity and publication ethics from the view of a German ombudsperson who has been actively involved in the topic since 1997, with experience from several cases of authorship conflicts. Possible explanations for the observed misconduct are discussed as well as ways to prevent it.

B - Croatia moves away from fostering research integrity

Marusic M. Craotia moves away from fostering research integrity. The Lancet 2010;376(9753):1627-8 (doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61999-X) Croatia seems to be moving away from a leadership position in research integrity regulation. A new law abolishes the National Committee on Ethics in Science and Higher Education, the highest national body on research ethics. The law leaves the regulation of ethics to individual institutions, obliging them only to publish their related documents on their websites.

Monday, December 13, 2010

B - Who's a peer?

Shashok K. Who's a peer? Improving peer review by including additional sources of expertise. Journal of Participatory Medicine 2010 Dec 8;2:e15

To strengthen the review process, the Journal of Participatory Medicine proposes to enlarge peer expertise to include experts outside the academic and professional communities (such as health care users and other lay experts), who have a stake in the quality of the evidence. According to the author, this can improve the valuable source of knowledge and help rebuild evidence-sharing conduits among patients, physicians, and researhers.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

B - Metrics: a profusion of measures

Van Noorden R. Metrics: a profusion of measures. Nature 2010; 465:864-866

Within the past decade, the development of scientific performance indicators has accelerated rapidly, accompanied by the the ready availability of online databases such as the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. The author offers a survey of this evolving situation: from the impact factor to the h-index and its more than a dozen variants and to the increasingly popular class of measure called "evaluative informetric". This last metric gives heavier weight to citations from papers that are themselved highly cited.

B - Open access availability of LIS research

Way D. The open access availability of Library and Information Science literature. College & Research Libraries 2010; 71(4);302-309

To examine the open access availability of Library and Information Science (LIS) research, a study was conducted using Google Scholar to search for articles from 20 top LIS journals published in 2007. The results showed a lack of archiving of articles, being not deposited in institutional or subject repositories at a high rate. This is in spite of the fact that a previous study found that 90% of the LIS journals allow some form of self-archiving.

B - Improving access to research

Courant PN, O'Donnell JJ, Okerson A et al. Improving access to research. Science 2010; 327(5964):393
(doi: 10.1126/science.1186933)

A recent report, issued by the US House Science and Technology Committee's Roundtable on Scholarly Publishing, recommends that journal articles derived from federal research funding should be made publicly available as quickly as practicable (generally, in a year or less after publication). The report calls for each US funding agency to develop public access policies and focuses on the critical role of peer review, the need for continued engagement among stakeholders, and the importance of fostering innovation.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

B - Principles of ethical publishing

Shewan LG, Coats AJS. Ethics in the authorship and publishing of scientific articles. International Journal of Cardiology 2010;144(1):1-2
(doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.07.030)

The detection and interest in scientific fraud in publishing increased from 55 articles on this issue in 1983 to 167 in 2009. Since January 2009 the International Journal of Cardiology has required all papers published in the Journal should carry a statement that all authors adhere to its principles of ethical publishing and should cite and agree to a published statement of ethical authorship and publishing. Since then the number of fraudulent cases has begun to fall and, more important, cases have been easier to deal with, as the authors have agreed how their cases should be handled.

B - Writing book reviews

Hartley J. The anatomy of a book review. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 2010;40(4):473-487

This article provides a full account of the procedures used to write one specific book review. Essentially, the process involves three main stages: reading, scanning and making notes about the text; writing an initial rough draft of the review; editing and polishing it several times to produce a final version. Examples are given to illustrate this three-stage procedure and some comments on the language used in reviews are also included.