Tuesday, February 25, 2014

B - Research design of articles in Brazilian physical therapy journals

Saragiotto BT, Costa LCM, Oliveira RF, et al. Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy e-pub 2014
(doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552012005000136)

One important step in accessing high-quality clinical research in evidence-based physical therapy is the identification of the research design used and knowing where the research design is ranked in the hierarchy (or levels) of evidence. This article aims to describe the research design used in articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are relevant to physical therapy or physical medicine and rehabilitation. Journals that are freely available and have high Qualis rankings were evaluated over the most recent 7-year period (2005 to 2011).
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-35552014005000136&script=sci_arttext

B - Citation indices of Korean scientific journals

Kim JA, Huh S, Chu MS. Correlation among the citation indices of Korean scientific journals listed in international databases. Science Editing 2014;1(1):27-36
(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.27)

This article intends to examine the influence of Korean scientific journals and find solutions for future growth by performing a correlation analysis of the indicators of citation indices for 62 Korean scientific journals cross-listed in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journals showed low values in both popularity and prestige-based indicators. The authors suggested to take a strategic approach to improve those values, in particular the impact factor.http://www.escienceediting.org/journal/view.php?number=8

Friday, February 21, 2014

B - Medical writing and ghostwriting

Das N, Das S. Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting? Biochemia Medica 2014;24(1):19-24
(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.004)

Several international guidelines including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines require authors to acknowledge the contribution of medical writers.
This article discusses this acknowledgement and it emphasizes on how acknowledging medical writing support can go a long way in curbing the menace of scientific misconduct including ghostwriting. Some biomedical editors predict a gradual shift from the traditional authorship system to a model of contributorship: even medical writers who do not always qualify as authors would receive adequate acknowledgement for their contribution.
http://www.biochemia-medica.com/2014/24/19

B - Tips for non-native English speakers editors

Murugesan R. Publishing a journal in English: tips for journal editors who are non-native English speakers. Science Editing 2014;1(1):46-48
(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.46)

Journal editors should make sure that the quality of English in their journal is consistently high. This article is aimed at non-native English speaking journal editors who wish to improve the standard of English in their journals. It describes several types of language professionals who can be involved in preparing a scientific manuscript for publication. Among them, the author's editor is a person who helps an author improve the language and presentation of a manuscript; a copy-editor works for a range of clients (i.e., publishers, universities, individual authors) and is involved in the author's publishing goals.
http://www.escienceediting.org/journal/view.php?number=11

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

B - Gender disparities in science

Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, et al. Global gender disparities in science. Nature 2013;504:211-213
(doi: 10.1038/504211a)

In this paper the authors present a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis of: the relationship between gender and research output; the extent of collaboration; and the scientific impact of published papers. They used the following parameters: authorship; co-authorship; and citations.
Their findings confirm that gender imbalances persist in research output worldwide. Globally, women accounted for fewer than 30% of fractionalized authorships of scientific papers; in terms of collaboration, women tended to be more “domestically oriented” (i.e., focused on within country collaborations) than men; and papers with women in prominent author positions received fewer citations (on average) than those with men in the same positions. The authors recommend programmes fostering international collaboration for female researchers.
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

B - Legal remedies for ghostwriting

Stern S, Lemmens T. Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles. Medical Writing 2013;22(4):264-271
(doi: 10.1179/2047480613Z.000000000164)

In industry-controlled research several examples have revealed the use of ghostwriters, and the recruitment of academics as guest authors despite not fulfilling authorship criteria. The authors suggest that the practice of ghostwriting could be deterred through the imposition of legal liability on the guest authors. Thus, a guest author's claim for credit of an article could constitutes a legal fraud.
http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2047480613Z.000000000164

B - Standards on responsible research publication

Wager E, Kleinert S. Why do we need international standards on responsible research publication for authors and editors? Journal of Global Health 2013;3(2):020301
(doi: 10.7189/jogh.03.020301)

Most journals concentrate on style and formatting but give little or no information about research and publication ethics. Peer review cannot, by itself, prevent fraud or misconduct. This article include position statements and the Guidelines on Responsible Research Publication for authors and editors, that were developed after a wide international consultation with input from researchers and editors. They aim to establish international standards and to describe responsible research reporting practice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868814/

B - Dealing with peer review

Cleary M, Walter G, Daly J. Dealing with peer review: what is reasonable and what is not? Collegian 2013;20(3):123-125
(doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2013.06.004)

Peer review is a central process in publishing. Carefully constructed peer reviews are likely to result in a substantially strenghtened article. Thus peer reviewers form an essential role in the advancement of knowledge and do so for little recognition or reward: many editors, editorial board members and reviewers provide their services voluntarily. They ensure poor quality manuscripts are not published, thus maintaining the reputation of the journal and the quality of scientific knowledge.
http://www.collegianjournal.com/article/S1322-7696(13)00061-9/abstract

B - Publishing in nursing

Broome ME. The dynamic world of publishing in nursing: impact assessment. Nursing Outlook 2013;30:379-380
(doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2013.10.001)

This article describes some new and dynamic concepts in publishing. In addition to the web-based systems for submitting manuscripts to journals, that shortened considerably the amount of time to transmit manuscripts to reviewers and back again to the editor, an important concept is that of  journal metrics. The latest methods of measuring impact are called altmetrics and are being used by publishers to assess the widespread use of one's article,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029655413001838

B - Research funded by drug industry

Smith R, G√łtzsche PC, Groves T. Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry? BMJ 2014;348:g171
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.g171)

The BMJ and its sibling journals have stopped publishing research funded by the tobacco industry for two main reasons: the research is corrupted and the companies publish their research to advance their commercial aims, oblivious of the harm they do. Two authors of this article say that research funded by the drug industry is also flawed and published to encourage sales, but the third author says that the industries are fundamentally different and that moves are afoot to increase integrity. The BMJ considers drug and devices trials only if the authors also commit to making the relevant anonymised patient level data available on reasonable request.
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g171