Tuesday, October 06, 2015

B - Negative results

Teixeira da Silva JA. Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 2015;14:12
(doi: 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9)

Not all negative results in science get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing framework that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published.
http://www.jnrbm.com/content/14/1/12

B - Increasing value and reduce waste

Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? The Lancet Sept. 28, 2015
(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4)

Published online during the REWARD/EQUATOR Conference in Edinburgh (September 28-30), this review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of The Lancet 2014 series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders—funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers, Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)00307-4/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

B - Can a medical researcher have too many publications?

Jorm AF. Can a medical researcher have too many publications? The Medical Journal of Australia 2015;203(5):230-1
(doi: 10.5694/mja15.00194)

Most prolific researchers may not be adhering to authorship guidelines: the author argues that very high publication rates should be seen as indicating poor authorship practices and should be discounted in evaluating track record.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/5/can-medical-researcher-have-too-many-publications

B - The COBWEB randomized controlled trial

Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine 2015;13:221
(doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y)

The authors developed a writing aid tool based on the CONSORT guidelines and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments to help authors when writing a report of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). They evaluated the impact of this tool on the completeness of reporting of two-arm parallel-group RCTs evaluating pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/221