Conducting interdisciplinary research to promote healthy and safe employment in health care: promises and pitfalls.
(49/310)
Due to the complexity of human health, emphasis is increasingly being placed on the need for and conduct of multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary health research. Yet many academic and research organizations--and the discipline-specific associations and journals--may not yet be prepared to adopt changes necessary to optimally support interdisciplinary work. This article presents an ongoing interdisciplinary research project's efforts to investigate mechanisms and pathways that lead to occupational health disparities among healthcare workers. It describes the promises and pitfalls encountered during the research,and outlines effective strategies that emerged as a result. Lessons learned include: conflict resolution regarding theoretical and methodological differences; establishing a sense of intellectual ownership of the research, as well as guidelines for multiple authorship; and development and utilization of protocols, communication systems, and tools. This experience suggests a need for the establishment of supportive structures and processes to promote successful interdisciplinary research. (+info)
Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys.
(50/310)
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ's current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication. DESIGN: Two cross sectional surveys. SETTING: General medical journal. PARTICIPANTS: Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ. RESULTS: Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication. CONCLUSIONS: It is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website. Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version. (+info)
Author self-citation in the diabetes literature.
(51/310)
BACKGROUND: Author self-citation is the practice of citing one's previous publications in a new publication. Its extent is unknown. We studied author self-citation, choosing the major clinical field of diabetes mellitus to represent the general medical literature. METHODS: We identified every article about diabetes mellitus in 170 hand-searched clinical journals published in 2000. For every article, we recorded the bibliographic citation and publication type (original or review article) and assessed the methodologic rigour. Citation information was obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge in April 2003. RESULTS: Of 49,028 articles, 289 were about diabetes mellitus and had citation information. Citation counts ranged from 0 to 347 (median 6, interquartile range [IQR] 2-12). Author self-citation counts ranged from 0 to 16 (median 1, IQR 0-2). Author self-citations accounted for an average of 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15%-21%) and a median of 7% (95% CI 5%- 11%) of all citations of each publication that was cited at least once (n = 266). Original articles had double the mean proportion of author self-citations compared with review articles (19% v. 9%; median 7% v. 0%, difference 7%, 95% CI 0- 10%). Methodologic rigour and review type were not significantly associated with subsequent author self-citation. INTERPRETATION: Nearly one-fifth of all citations to articles about diabetes mellitus in clinical journals in the year 2000 were author self-citations. The frequency of self-citation was not associated with the quality of publications. These findings are likely applicable to the general clinical medicine literature and may have important implications for the assessment of journal or publication importance and the process of scientific discovery. (+info)
How to write a research paper.
(52/310)
BACKGROUND: Busy strokologists often find little time for scientific writing. They sometimes develop a mental condition equivalent to that known by neurologists as writer's cramp. It may result in permanent damage to academic career. This paper provides advice how to prevent or treat this condition. METHODS: Prepare your manuscript following the IMRaD principle (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), with every part supporting the key message. When writing, be concise. Clearly state your methods here, while data belong to Results. Successful submissions combine quality new data or new thinking with lucid presentation. RESULTS: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe here most important numeric data and statistics, keeping in mind that the shorter you can present them, the better. The scientific community screens abstracts to decide which full text papers to read. Make your point with data, not arguments. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. The time of lengthy and unfounded speculations is over. A simple message in a clearly written manuscript will get noticed and may advance our understanding of stroke. (+info)
Case reports in respiratory care.
(53/310)
The information in a case report should be viewed cautiously in terms of generalization beyond the reported example. Appropriately written and interpreted, however, a case report can be a valuable contribution to medical knowledge and educational for both author and reader. This article discusses the essential components of a case report, important issues of patient confidentiality, and how authorship should be determined. It then describes 10 common pitfalls in case report writing. These are inexperience, insufficient documentation of the case, insufficient awareness of practice beyond one's own clinical setting, describing substandard care, illogical or unphysiologic intervention, poor focus of presentation and discussion, inappropriate manuscript format, poor writing, ineffective illustrations, and poor use of references. The article then presents 10 specific ways to avoid or deal with these pitfalls, with the aim of increasing the likelihood that a prospective author's manuscript will be accepted for publication. These ways include seeking appropriate assistance with writing, documenting the case as thoroughly as possible, and carefully justifying any new technique or intervention. Authors are urged to expend the time and effort required to prepare the manuscript properly, using the journal's guidelines and paying special attention to illustrations and references, and also to have the manuscript read by a local colleague before formal submission. After submission, authors should view the receipt of reviewers' comments and subsequent manuscript revision as necessary and positive steps toward successful publication. (+info)
Anatomy of a research paper.
(54/310)
Writing, editing, and publishing the paper is the last step in the research process. The paper tells the story of the project from inception, through the data-collection process, statistical analysis, and discussion of the results. Novice authors often struggle with writing and often find themselves with either nothing on paper or a weighty version of random thoughts. The process of writing the paper should be analogous to the research process. This article describes and provides a template for the essential sections and features of a scientific report (structured abstract, introduction, hypothesis, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions), describes authorship guidelines that have been established by professional societies, and discusses the importance of adequate and correct references. (+info)
Under-representation of developing countries in the research literature: ethical issues arising from a survey of five leading medical journals.
(55/310)
BACKGROUND: It is widely acknowledged that there is a global divide on health care and health research known as the 10/90 divide. METHODS: A retrospective survey of articles published in the BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, Annals of Internal Medicine & JAMA in a calendar year to examine the contribution of the developing world to medical literature. We categorized countries into four regions: UK, USA, Other Euro-American countries (OEAC) and (RoW). OEAC were European countries other than the UK but including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. RoW comprised all other countries. RESULTS: The average contribution of the RoW to the research literature in the five journals was 6.5%. In the two British journals 7.6% of the articles were from the RoW; in the three American journals 4.8% of articles were from RoW. The highest proportion of papers from the RoW was in the Lancet (12%). An analysis of the authorship of 151 articles from RoW showed that 104 (68.9%) involved authorship with developed countries in Europe or North America. There were 15 original papers in these journals with data from RoW but without any authors from RoW. CONCLUSIONS: There is a marked under-representation of countries in high-impact general medical journals. The ethical implications of this inequity and ways of reducing it are discussed. (+info)
Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survery-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline.
(56/310)
In a large and detailed survey of scientific coauthorship in pathology, 3500 members of the US and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) were surveyed via the Internet with a final response rate of 22.5%. The results were compared with a previous survey of members of the American Physical Society (APS). The fields are found to be very similar. For example, there is no well-defined way to determine coauthorship: the byline is arrived at without the use of public coauthorship standards according to 90% of respondents (92% in physics). A substantial amount of inappropriate authorship is present in both fields using a variety of authorship guidelines. For example, using the guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" [ICMJE]), the average number of coauthors judged to be inappropriate in pathology on papers with 4 coauthors is 1.0 (1.2 in physics), and using the guideline requiring "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention," we find 1.6 (1.5 in physics). Finally, it is suggested that authorship guidelines should be constructed by public surveys rather than closed-door committees: an authorship guideline constructed from previous survey feedback (from APS members) was found to be preferable to USCAP members (it received 40% of the vote, the ICMJE received 24% of the vote). (+info)