How to present, summarize, and defend your poster at the meeting.
(49/372)
For many people public speaking induces stress and fear, but with adequate planning, practice, and understanding of the "dos and don'ts" you can deliver presentations that will communicate your research clearly, succinctly, and with a professional and confident demeanor. This article provides a guide for the novice researcher to develop the skills to deliver several types of presentation and to minimize (and even make use of) the stress and fear. Planning and practice are the key to success. (+info)
Anatomy of a research paper.
(50/372)
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)
The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication.
(51/372)
This article discusses why many research projects that have been presented in abstract form are never published as full articles, and lists 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication in Respiratory Care. Some of these reasons are easily avoidable or readily overcome. Included in this category is submission of manuscripts that do not correspond to the kinds of articles the Journal publishes, either in subject matter or in format. Poor writing impedes peer review and is unlikely to prejudice editors in an author's favor, although it is seldom the primary reason for rejection. Common deficiencies in the methods, results, and discussion sections prevent initial acceptance for publication but are at least potentially amenable to correction. More serious are fundamental defects in study design, which although correctable at the inception of a project, often doom the paper once the study has been completed. Two problems that are especially unfortunate for authors and potential readers alike are failing to revise and resubmit a manuscript after initial peer review and never preparing a full manuscript in the first place, after presentation of the work in abstract form. This special issue of Respiratory Care and other cited publications offer practical resources for authors to use in overcoming each of these problems. (+info)
Extending the mutual information measure to rank inferred literature relationships.
(52/372)
BACKGROUND: Within the peer-reviewed literature, associations between two things are not always recognized until commonalities between them become apparent. These commonalities can provide justification for the inference of a new relationship where none was previously known, and are the basis of most observation-based hypothesis formation. It has been shown that the crux of the problem is not finding inferable associations, which are extraordinarily abundant given the scale-free networks that arise from literature-based associations, but determining which ones are informative. The Mutual Information Measure (MIM) is a well-established method to measure how informative an association is, but is limited to direct (i.e. observable) associations. RESULTS: Herein, we attempt to extend the calculation of mutual information to indirect (i.e. inferable) associations by using the MIM of shared associations. Objects of general research interest (e.g. genes, diseases, phenotypes, drugs, ontology categories) found within MEDLINE are used to create a network of associations for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Mutual information calculations can be effectively extended into implied relationships and a significance cutoff estimated from analysis of random word networks. Of the models tested, the shared minimum MIM (MMIM) model is found to correlate best with the observed strength and frequency of known associations. Using three test cases, the MMIM method tends to rank more specific relationships higher than counting the number of shared relationships within a network. (+info)
Peer-review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open access journals.
(53/372)
Peer-review and publication of research protocols offer several advantages to all parties involved. Among these are the following opportunities for authors: external expert opinion on the methods, demonstration to funding agencies of prior expert review of the protocol, proof of priority of ideas and methods, and solicitation of potential collaborators. We think that review and publication of protocols is an important role for Open Access journals. Because of their electronic form, openness for readers, and author-pays business model, they are better suited than traditional journals to ensure the sustainability and quality of protocol reviews and publications. In this editorial, we describe the workflow for investigators in eHealth research, from protocol submission to a funding agency, to protocol review and (optionally) publication at JMIR, to registration of trials at the International eHealth Study Registry (IESR), and to publication of the report. One innovation at JMIR is that protocol peer reviewers will be paid a honorarium, which will be drawn partly from a new submission fee for protocol reviews. Separating the article processing fee into a submission and a publishing fee will allow authors to opt for "peer-review only" (without subsequent publication) at reduced costs, if they wish to await a funding decision or for other reasons decide not to make the protocol public. (+info)
How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care?
(54/372)
OBJECTIVES: Medicine must keep current with the research literature, and keeping current requires continuously updating the clinical knowledge base (i.e., references that provide answers to clinical questions). The authors estimated the volume of medical literature potentially relevant to primary care published in a month and the time required for physicians trained in medical epidemiology to evaluate it for updating a clinical knowledge base. METHODS: We included journals listed in five primary care journal review services (ACP Journal Club, DynaMed, Evidence-Based Practice, Journal Watch, and QuickScan Reviews). Finding little overlap, we added the 2001 "Brandon/Hill Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library." We counted articles (including letters, editorials, and other commentaries) published in March 2002, using bibliographic software where possible and hand counting when necessary. For journals not published in March 2002, we reviewed the nearest issue. Five primary care physicians independently evaluated fifty randomly selected articles and timed the process. RESULTS: The combined list contained 341 currently active journals with 8,265 articles. Adjusting for publication frequency, we estimate 7,287 articles are published monthly in this set of journals. Physicians trained in epidemiology would take an estimated 627.5 hours per month to evaluate these articles. CONCLUSIONS: To provide practicing clinicians with the best current evidence, more comprehensive and systematic literature surveillance efforts are needed. (+info)
Virology on the Internet: the time is right for a new journal.
(55/372)
Virology Journal is an exclusively on-line, Open Access journal devoted to the presentation of high-quality original research concerning human, animal, plant, insect bacterial, and fungal viruses. Virology Journal will establish a strategic alternative to the traditional virology communication process. (+info)
Monitoring and oversight in critical care research.
(56/372)
Institutionally based research ethics review is a form of peer review that has - for better or worse - become the norm throughout the world. The vast majority of research ethics review takes the form of protocol review alone, conducted in advance of the research. Although oversight and monitoring in clinical research have long been recognized as essential features of sound research ethics, they are seldom exercised in ways that fulfill their motivating goals: to ensure that research is conducted as planned; that research participants comprehend the information presented to them in the consent process; and that the potential benefits and risks of study participation remain acceptable. Annual review of continuing research, monitoring informed consent, monitoring adherence to approved protocols and monitoring integrity of research data comprise the main types of monitoring and oversight activity. We believe that our institutionally based systems of research ethics review and responsibility require greater engagement and participation from researchers and research administrators. The appropriate role of critical care researchers and research administrators is to provide leadership to move toward a greater recognition of the importance of monitoring and oversight for ethical and high quality clinical research. (+info)