Inclusion of policies on ethical standards in animal experiments in biomedical science journals.
(9/15)
Most published biomedical research involving animal models is evaluated carefully to ensure that appropriate ethical standards are met. In the current study, 500 journals randomly selected from MedLine were assessed for whether they presented animal research. Of the 138 journals that did, the instructions to authors of 85 (61.6%) included a requirement for author assurance of adherence to ethical standards during experiments involving animals. In comparison to a wider range of biologic journals, biomedical science journals were more likely to have some sort of ethical policy concerning the reporting and presentation of animal experiments. (+info)
Cross-pollination of research findings, although uncommon, may accelerate discovery of human disease genes.
(10/15)
Information needs of rural health professionals: a retrospective use study.
(13/15)
To explore the information needs of rural health professionals, a retrospective study was undertaken of 1,224 document delivery requests made during the course of three outreach projects in west and central Illinois. The 547 unique journals from which the articles were requested were analyzed for frequency of request, subject content, and inclusion on core lists. These rural health professionals were found to request current information on a wide range of topics in clinical medicine, nursing, health administration, allied health, social sciences, and basic sciences. While 10% of the titles filled 37% of the requests, 58% of the titles were requested once and filled 26% of the requests. A high correlation with Abridged Index Medicus and Brandon/Hill list titles was found, but titles from either of these lists could fill no more than 30% of the total requests. Besides demonstrating the complex information needs of rural health professionals and depicting the difficulty of building a collection to support them, the study exemplifies a method for need-based journal collection development and begins to identify titles commonly requested in a rural health setting. (+info)
A use study of speech pathology and audiology periodicals at Illinois State University.
(14/15)
No core list of periodicals exists for speech pathology and audiology. Faced with the prospect of having to cancer periodicals for all subjects, the science librarians at Illinois State University decided to determine which science periodicals were used most heavily. A one-year study of science periodical reshelving and interlibrary loan requests yielded ranked lists of periodicals important to speech pathology and audiology faculty and students at Illinois State University. The three most heavily used journals were the Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, ASHA, and Topics in Language Disorders. Most of the periodicals on the lists were indexed by either MEDLINE or UnCover, or by both. While the lists of journals developed in the study are not sufficient to serve as true core lists, they should be useful to libraries supporting comparable programs in speech pathology and audiology. (+info)
Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine.
(15/15)
BACKGROUND: Two directories that contain information about serials also offer lists of thousands of journals identified as peer-reviewed. Librarians generally regard these lists as authoritative. OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical medicine journals on both peer-reviewed lists, measure the extent of discrepancies between these two lists, and determine the cause for these discrepancies. DESIGN: Comparison study. MEASUREMENTS: The extent of the discrepancies were tallied once the author had attempted to control for all extraneous variables. Interviews with the editorial staffs of each directory in regard to procedures for compiling the directories did not produce an explanation for these discrepancies. RESULTS: Nearly half (46%) of the 784 clinical medicine journals were unique to either one directory's list of peer-reviewed journals or the other's, indicating significant discrepancies between the two directories. Specifically, The Serials Directory listed 211 (27%) unique titles and Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory listed 150 (19%) unique titles (total unique titles = 46%). Both directories listed 423 of the same titles (54%). CONCLUSION: Widespread confusion about the actual identities of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals appears to explain the discrepancies between lists in these two periodical directories. (+info)