Biomedical publishing and the internet: evolution or revolution?
(9/310)
The Internet is challenging traditional publishing patterns. In the biomedical domain, medical journals are providing more and more content online, both free and for a fee. Beyond this, however, a number of commentators believe that traditional notions of copyright and intellectual property ownership are no longer suited to the information age and that ownership of copyright to research reports should be and will be wrested from publishers and returned to authors. In this paper, it is argued that, although the Internet will indeed profoundly affect the distribution of biomedical research results, the biomedical publishing industry is too intertwined with the research establishment and too powerful to fall prey to such a copyright revolution. (+info)
Web page quality: can we measure it and what do we find? A report of exploratory findings.
(10/310)
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report exploratory findings from an attempt to quantify the quality of a sample of World Wide Web (WWW) pages relating to MMR vaccine that a typical user might locate. METHOD: Forty pages obtained from a search of the WWW using two search engines and the search expression 'mmr vaccine' were analysed using a standard proforma. The proforma looked at the information the pages contained in terms of three categories: content, authorship and aesthetics. The information from each category was then quantified into a summary statistic, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using a 'gold standard' of quality derived from the published literature. Optimal cut-off points for each of the three sections were calculated that best discriminated 'good' from 'bad' pages. Pages were also assessed as to whether they were pro- or anti-vaccination. RESULTS: For this sample, the combined contents and authorship score, with a cut-off of five, was a good discriminator, having 88 per cent sensitivity and 92 per cent specificity. Aesthetics was not a good discriminator. In the sample, 32.5 per cent of pages were pro-vaccination; 42.5 per cent were anti-vaccination and 25 per cent were neutral. The relative risk of being of poor quality if anti-vaccination was 3.3 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.8, 6.1). CONCLUSION: The sample of Web pages did contain some quality information on MMR vaccine. It also contained a great deal of misleading, inaccurate data. The proforma, combined with a knowledge of the literature, may help to distinguish between the two. (+info)
Causal authorship and the equality principle: a defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia.
(11/310)
This paper defends the acts/omissions distinction which underpins the present law on euthanasia, from various criticisms (including from within the judiciary itself), and aims to show that it is supported by fundamental principles. After rejecting arguments that deny the coherence and/or legal relevance of the distinction, the discussion proceeds to focus on the causal relationship between the doctor and the patient's death in each case. Although previous analyses, challenging the causal efficacy of omissions generally, are shown to be deficient, it is argued that in certain cases of causing death by omission the causal authorship of the doctor lapses. The final part of the paper examines why this should be morally significant and proposes an answer in terms of the principle of equality. Assuming all other factors are equal, the infringement of this principle provides an additional reason against actively killing a patient, which is not present in cases of passively letting die. (+info)
International publication trends of JABA authorship.
(12/310)
The present study addressed international publication trends in JABA authorship between 1970 and 1999. First, we analyzed authorship patterns to identify trends in the appearance of new first authors, unfamiliar authors, and frequent contributors. Second, articles were assigned to either a North American or an international category. The data show a decline in the number of articles by new authors and an increase in the publications of frequent contributors from North America. Trends are shown in comparison to those from the American Journal on Mental Retardation. (+info)
The effects of competency requirements in Part II MFPHM submission--a study of the abstracts of successful reports.
(13/310)
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study are to explore the effects of the new 1996 guidance requiring explicit demonstration of competencies on the nature of successful MFPHM Part II reports, how successful candidates claimed competency areas in their two reports and the effects of the subject areas of the report on the specific competencies claimed. METHODS: The abstracts of candidates who passed the examination from January 1996 to January 1999 were studied. Information was extracted on candidate's region, year of the abstract, examination guidance, subject area, methods and data used, format of the abstract, and level (e.g. national, regional, etc.) for which the work was performed. RESULTS: Compared with reports submitted under the 1992 guidance, those submitted under the 1996 guidance were more likely to have a structured abstract, and to employ descriptive epidemiological methods and routine data, and were less likely to be case-control or retrospective studies. There were no other significant differences in the level for which the work was performed, the subject area, or the methods and data used. Thirty-nine per cent of candidates under the 1996 guidance claimed at least one identical competency area in both reports, most frequently for health needs assessment and literature review. Each of the four competencies was demonstrated by a significant proportion of reports in each subject areas. CONCLUSIONS: The new examination guidance had only minor effects on the nature of successful Part II reports. Candidates used different strategies for claiming competencies, apparently at the choice of individual trainees and trainers. The competency requirements did not appear to limit the range of work performed. (+info)
Publication ethics and the research assessment exercise: reflections on the troubled question of authorship.
(14/310)
The research assessment exercise (RAE) forms the basis for determining the funding of higher education institutions in the UK. Monies are distributed according to a range of performance criteria, the most important of which is "research outputs". Problems to do with publication misconduct, and in particular, issues of justice in attributing authorship, are endemic within the research community. It is here argued that the research assessment exercise currently makes no explicit attempt to address these concerns, and indeed, by focusing attention on research outputs, may actually be fostering such ethical problems. (+info)
The structure of scientific collaboration networks.
(15/310)
The structure of scientific collaboration networks is investigated. Two scientists are considered connected if they have authored a paper together and explicit networks of such connections are constructed by using data drawn from a number of databases, including MEDLINE (biomedical research), the Los Alamos e-Print Archive (physics), and NCSTRL (computer science). I show that these collaboration networks form "small worlds," in which randomly chosen pairs of scientists are typically separated by only a short path of intermediate acquaintances. I further give results for mean and distribution of numbers of collaborators of authors, demonstrate the presence of clustering in the networks, and highlight a number of apparent differences in the patterns of collaboration between the fields studied. (+info)
Authors, editors, policy makers, and the impact factor.
(16/310)
Some aspects of the "impact factor", a quantitative measure of journals' influence on journals in scientific fields, were discussed in the preceding issue of the Croatian Medical Journal by Dr Eugene Garfield, one of its devisers. This factor can be of interest to authors, journal editors, and policy makers, but they should keep in mind the complexity of the determinants of impact factors while using them in coming to their particular kinds of decisions. A clearer picture of the influence a journal may have in its own scientific field rather than among all scientific journals could come from a variant of the impact factor, "the scope-adjusted impact factor". The calculation of this variant impact factor is described. A table presents some sample data from this calculation and shows how the relative positions of some major journals shift when they are ranked by this factor rather than the unadjusted impact factor. The possible value of this variant factor may merit further testing. (+info)