On the persistence of supplementary resources in biomedical publications.
(25/243)
BACKGROUND: Providing for long-term and consistent public access to scientific data is a growing concern in biomedical research. One aspect of this problem can be demonstrated by evaluating the persistence of supplementary data associated with published biomedical papers. METHODS: We manually evaluated 655 supplementary data links extracted from PubMed abstracts published 1998-2005 (Method 1) as well as a further focused subset of 162 full-text manuscripts published within three representative high-impact biomedical journals between September and December 2004 (Method 2). RESULTS: For Method 1 we found that since 2001, only 71 - 92% of supplementary data were still accessible via the links provided, with 93% of these inaccessible links occurring where supplementary data was not stored with the publishing journal. Of the manuscripts evaluated in Method 2, we found that only 83% of these links were available approximately a year after publication, with 55% of these inaccessible links were at locations outside the journal of publication. CONCLUSION: We conclude that if supplemental data is required to support the publication, journals policies must take-on the responsibility to accept and store such data or require that it be maintained with a credible independent institution or under the terms of a strategic data storage plan specified by the authors. We further recommend that publishers provide automated systems to ensure that supplementary links remain persistent, and that granting bodies such as the NIH develop policies and funding mechanisms to maintain long-term persistent access to these data. (+info)
What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
(26/243)
OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of the manuscripts submitted to the Indian Pediatrics; attributes of the peer-review process and decision-making; and factors associated with their acceptance or rejection. METHODS: All submissions to Indian Pediatrics during 2002 were analyzed by a retrospective review of records. Manuscripts were categorized by their place of origin (Indian vs. foreign), geographic region of India (north, south, east, west, central), submitting institution (teaching vs. non-teaching), subject (general pediatrics, systemic pediatrics, neonatology, genetic syndrome, allied sub-specialities, etc.), and type of article (research paper, case report, images, letter to editor, review, etc.). Manuscript details were recorded in a database that also included information on peer reviewer assignment, editorial and reviewer comments, and final disposition of the manuscript. Characteristics of accepted and rejected manuscripts were compared. RESULTS: Indian Pediatrics received 687 manuscripts for consideration in the year 2002; mostly from Indian authors (89%). Maximum contributions were received from North India (236, 39%) followed by 165 (27%) from South, 95 (16%) from West, 90 (15%) from Central and 26 (4%) from Eastern part of India. Of 687 papers, 457 (66%) articles qualified for peer review. Agreement between the reviewers was not significantly greater than that expected by chance; kappa for inter-rater agreement was 0.35, 0.17 and 0.21 between any two sets of reviewers for 431, 228 and 203 articles, respectively (P < 0.005). Of 687 submitted manuscripts, 294(43%) were accepted, 347(50%) were rejected and no decision was possible on 46(7%) manuscripts. The top reasons for rejection were 'absence of a message', 'lack of originality', 'inadequate methods', 'not relevant to journal', 'over-interpretation of results', 'unsatisfactory writing style', 'inaccurate/inconsistent/insufficient data', and 'inappropriate statistical analysis', in that order. Median number of days (IQR) needed to reach the final decision was 81 (25-210) d; ranging from 8 (3-29.5) d for Images to 180 (90-341) d for Research papers. No preference for acceptance was noted for foreign articles, geographic region of India, type of institution, or a particular topic, on both univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Indian Pediatrics is receiving contributions from all over India. Majority of the manuscripts are peer-reviewed. Of every 10 articles submitted, almost 4 are accepted. Median time interval from submission to final decision is less than 3 months. The decision-making is not influenced by the place of origin of manuscript. (+info)
Quality of scientific articles.
(27/243)
The paper discusses the difficulties in judging the quality of scientific manuscripts and describes some common pitfalls that should be avoided when preparing a paper for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is an imperfect system, with less than optimal reliability and uncertain validity. However, as it is likely that it will remain as the principal process of screening papers for publication, authors should avoid some common mistakes when preparing a report based on empirical findings of human research. Among these are: excessively long abstracts, extensive use of abbreviations, failure to report results of parsimonious data analyses, and misinterpretation of statistical associations identified in observational studies as causal. Another common problem in many manuscripts is their excessive length, which makes them more difficult to be evaluated or read by the intended readers, if published. The evaluation of papers after their publication with a view towards their inclusion in a systematic review is also discussed. The limitations of the impact factor as a criterion to judge the quality of a paper are reviewed. (+info)
Publishing HIV/AIDS behavioural science reports: An author's guide.
(28/243)
The purpose of this paper is to report on characteristics of journals that publish manuscripts in the HIV/AIDS behavioural science realm, with the goal of providing assistance to authors seeking to disseminate their work in the most appropriate outlet. Fifty journals who publish behavioural research on HIV/AIDS in English were identified through library and electronic searches. Although ten of the journals focused specifically on HIV/AIDS, the majority of journals are in related fields, including health psychology/behavioural medicine, sexual behaviour, substance abuse, public health/prevention or general medicine. Acceptance rates ranged from 8- 89% with a mean acceptance rate of 39%. Reported review times ranged from 1-12 months with three months the mode, while publication lag following acceptance averages six months. Acceptance rates were related to impact factors, with more selective journals evidencing higher impact factors. The variety of publication outlets available to authors of HIV/AIDS behavioral science studies creates ample opportunity for dissemination, as well as challenge for readers in discerning the quality of published work. (+info)
Expressing freedom and taking liberties: the paradoxes of aberrant science.
(29/243)
Complete freedom does not exist, despite people's preparedness to die for it. Scientific freedom is much defended and yet much misunderstood. Scientists have limits imposed on their freedom by the disciplines and discourse communities in which they place themselves. Freedom within these socially constructed constraints needs to be distinguished from taking liberties with the rules and practices that make up these constraints, and validate the activities of special groups within society. Scientists (and the public) perceive taking liberties with science's rules and practices as aberrant science, and they often react punitively. Aberrant science can be broadly examined under four headings: wicked science, naughty science, dysfunctional science, and ideologically unacceptable science. When we examine examples of perceived aberrant science, we find that these categories of "misconduct" are connected and often confused. Scientific freedom needs to be redefined with due regard to current understandings of scientists as human beings facing powerful social pressures to deliver results of a particular kind. (+info)
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
(30/243)
OBJECTIVE: We undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request. CONCLUSION: Many more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known. (+info)
Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials.
(31/243)
BACKGROUND: Results from clinical trials are typically disseminated first by presentation at scientific meetings. An important question has to do with the role of presentation in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the journals as well as the effect of presentation in speeding, or delaying subsequent publication. The aim of this research is focused on presentation practices of trialists to examine their effect on the timing of publications of clinical trial results. METHODS: Six hundred and one (601) trials published in 1996 and 1997 were identified via MEDLINE using medical subject heading "clinical trials" or the occurrence of the term in the text and by limiting to publication type "clinical trial". Authors of those trials were surveyed to determine prior presentation history for the identified trials. RESULTS: Among the 601 trials identified, complete responses to questionnaires were obtained for 379 (63%) trials. The median time from completion to first submission of the primary results manuscript was 11 months and the median time from completion to publication was 25 months for the 220 trials involving presentation prior to submission for publication. The corresponding median times from completion to first submission and publication for the subset of trials not involving presentation prior to the submission were 8 and 19 months (159 trials), respectively. The adjusted relative hazard for publication for trials involving presentation prior to first submission was 0.55 versus trials not involving presentation prior to first submission (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.69). CONCLUSION: Despite the importance of dissemination of results prior to publication, investigators should carefully weigh a potential gain in quality against a potential for delay in submission of the primary results manuscript by presentation at scientific meetings. The findings of our study suggest that presentation prior to submission may increase time to publication. Inclusion of presentation dates in clinical trial registers should be considered to allow future studies investigating presentation and publication practices. (+info)
Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals.
(32/243)
BACKGROUND: Authors are required to describe in their manuscripts ethical approval from an appropriate committee and how consent was obtained from participants when research involves human participants. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting of these protections for several study designs in general medical journals. DESIGN: A consecutive series of research papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine between February and May 2003 were reviewed for the reporting of ethical approval and patient consent. Ethical approval, name of approving committee, type of consent, data source and whether the study used data collected as part of a study reported elsewhere were recorded. Differences in failure to report approval and consent by study design, journal and vulnerable study population were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Ethical approval and consent were not mentioned in 31% and 47% of manuscripts, respectively. 88 (27%) papers failed to report both approval and consent. Failure to mention ethical approval or consent was significantly more likely in all study designs (except case-control and qualitative studies) than in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Failure to mention approval was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in The New England Journal of Medicine. Failure to mention consent was most common in the BMJ and was significantly more likely than in all other journals. No significant differences in approval or consent were found when comparing studies of vulnerable and non-vulnerable participants. CONCLUSION: The reporting of ethical approval and consent in RCTs has improved, but journals are less good at reporting this information for other study designs. Journals should publish this information for all research on human participants. (+info)