Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 28.797
Filtrar
4.
Chirurgia (Bucur) ; 115(3): 314-322, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32614286

RESUMO

One of the main goals of clinicians is to constantly improve the healthcare by spreading their expertise and by introducing innovations in medical science. Therefore, publishing is of utmost importance. Moreover, publishing helps authors in developing their academic carrier. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. The aim of the current paper, published in 3 parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively.


Assuntos
Editoração , Redação , Resultado do Tratamento
6.
S Afr Med J ; 110(4): 302-307, 2020 Mar 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32657742

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The recent amendment to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) Form 57 MED allows specialist registration on publication of the compulsory MMed research assignment in an accredited journal. No data exist on the conversion rate of MMed dissertations to publication. OBJECTIVES: To establish conversion rates of MMed dissertations to accredited publications. Associated variables arising from the publishing exercise were also investigated. METHODS: A total of 309 MMed dissertations, submitted between 1996 and 2017, were downloaded from the public domain. Each dissertation was recorded as to format, submission year, awarding university and clinical discipline. Electronic searches determined publication outcomes. Journal title, accreditation status, year of publication, registrar position on author ranking and publication type were extracted for each output. Descriptive analysis was undertaken and, where appropriate, Fisher's exact test at p>0.05 was used to establish statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 116 dissertations were published at an overall conversion rate of 37.5%, culminating in 136 outputs. Publication-ready dissertations had a significantly higher conversion rate (60.3%) than monographs (30.5%) (p>0.0001). All but 6 of the 80 publishing journals were accredited. SAMJ was the journal of choice for 13% of papers. The registrar was the first author in the majority of publications. In the case of monographs, 66% were published after dissertation submission compared with 50% of publication-ready formats. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion of the South African MMed dissertation into a journal-accredited scientific article was achieved in 60.3% of publication-ready-format submissions, suggesting that the HPCSA amendment facilitating specialist registration is attainable. Retrospective reviews of dissertations provide valuable insights to improve understanding of the contentious issue of the registrar research requirement that permits specialist registration.


Assuntos
Dissertações Acadêmicas como Assunto , Educação Médica , Política de Saúde , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Especialização , Acreditação , Definição da Elegibilidade , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Estudos Retrospectivos , África do Sul
7.
J Korean Med Sci ; 35(27): e256, 2020 Jul 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32657090

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. RESULTS: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). CONCLUSION: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Editoração , Má Conduta Científica , Mídias Sociais , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Revisão por Pares , Plágio , Pneumonia Viral , Inquéritos e Questionários
8.
Dermatol Online J ; 26(3)2020 Mar 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32609444

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The population of the U.S. is becoming more diverse every year. The field of dermatology is not following the same trend. OBJECTIVE: To assess the promotion of diversity in the field of dermatology by analyzing publications focused on diversity, compared to other specialties. METHODS: The PubMed database was systematically searched to identify publications focused on diversity from January 2008 to July 2019. The search criteria were as follows: dermatology/radiology/ophthalmology/ anesthesiology/orthopedic surgery/family medicine/ internal medicine/general surgery AND diversity/ diverse/racial/race/ethnic/ethnicity/cultural/culture/competency/competence. Comparisons were made using single-factor ANOVA and two-group t-tests. A qualitative analysis was performed for publications in the field of dermatology. RESULTS: From January 2016 to July 2019, there were 25 publications focused on diversity in dermatology (Mean=6.25, SD=2.06), compared to 6 in radiology (Mean=1.50, SD=1.29, P=0.01), two in ophthalmology (Mean=0.50, SD=0.58, P=0.01), two in anesthesiology (Mean=0.50, SD=1.00, P=0.01), 12 in orthopedic surgery (Mean=3.00, SD=1.41, P=0.04), 23 in family medicine (Mean=5.75, SD=2.22, P=0.75), 9 in internal medicine (Mean=2.25, SD=1.71, P=0.02), and 7 in general surgery (Mean=1.75, SD=0.50, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of dermatology has suffered from a lack of racial/ethnic diversity, efforts to promote diversity via increased publications in the last four years have been stronger in dermatology compared to many other fields.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Grupos de Populações Continentais , Diversidade Cultural , Dermatologia , Grupos Étnicos , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Mão de Obra em Saúde , Humanos , Medicina
10.
BMJ ; 369: m2081, 2020 06 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32586791

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: International sample of universities. PARTICIPANTS: 170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties. RESULTS: A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Editoração/normas , Universidades , Mobilidade Ocupacional , Estudos Transversais , Coleta de Dados , Docentes , Humanos , Política Organizacional
15.
BMJ ; 369: m115, 2020 06 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32554564

RESUMO

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.


Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Consenso , Editoração/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Lista de Checagem/normas , Técnica Delfos , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Controle de Qualidade , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
17.
BMC Med ; 18(1): 192, 2020 Jun 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32586327

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern. MAIN TEXT: Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Registros Públicos de Dados de Cuidados de Saúde , Editoração , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Saúde Pública , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA