Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 6.784
Filtrar
1.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 9: 932138, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36093176

RESUMO

Scientific fraud represents, to varying degrees, an increasingly important part of medical literature and is estimated to make up nearly 20% of this literature. The increase in the number of articles accessible in preprint without peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the accessibility of fraudulent articles. In recent years, the viral increase in the number of predatory journals has contributed to polluting the scientific literature with articles whose content is unverifiable. Given the international nature of biomedical research, there is an urgent need to define unequivocally what is considered scientific fraud. In order to counter scientific misconduct, national and supranational procedures should be implemented to inform researchers at the beginning of their medical and biomedical training. Ethics commissions should implement local procedures for monitoring ongoing research. Finally, the fight against predatory journals requires information for researchers and the availability of tools to identify these journals.

2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2022 Sep 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36113680

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We selected two Cochrane Networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory (MOSS) Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all Review Groups in those Networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from "reputable" to "presumed predatory" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment. RESULTS: We extracted 6965 citations from 321 reviews. Of these citations, 5734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning. DISCUSSION: Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.

4.
Res Synth Methods ; 2022 Aug 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36054583

RESUMO

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a Research Integrity Assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing 'Risk of Bias' aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

5.
Dev World Bioeth ; 2022 Sep 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36067405

RESUMO

O Senado Federal brasileiro criou uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito (CPI) para investigar as irregularidades do governo Bolsonaro na gestão da pandemia da COVID-19. Um dos casos que chamou a atenção foi a pesquisa realizada pela Prevent Senior, uma seguradora privada de saúde, sobre o tratamento precoce da COVID-19. O artigo analisa a validade científica da pesquisa e os problemas éticos relacionados à sua implementação. Baseia-se na análise do relatório do ensaio clínico da Prevent Senior, dos registros do ensaio clínico em plataformas do Brasil e dos EUA, do relatório da CPI do Senado e nas informações divulgadas pela mídia. Esse caso de fraude científica e viés político-ideológico exemplifica como a Prevent Senior, usando um protocolo questionável para melhorar sua reputação e ganhar o apoio do governo, foi fundamental na construção da narrativa do "tratamento precoce" para a COVID-19, e mostra como serviu de base para uma política pública governamental que promoveu o uso de drogas ineficazes.

6.
Nursing ; 52(10): 36-39, 2022 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36129504

RESUMO

ABSTRACT: This article guides nurses through the journal publication process, specifically how to choose a topic, send a query email, establish authorship, avoid predatory journals, and successfully advance on the publication path.


Assuntos
Autoria , Humanos
7.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e057481, 2022 Sep 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36123091

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The current manuscript presents a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the determinants of responsiveness to multidisciplinary management of chronic pain, with pain intensity, pain-related interference, physical functioning and health-related quality of life as the main outcomes, with consideration to multiple secondary outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To identify relevant studies, the Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL and Scopus databases will be searched for all studies exploring factors associated with responsiveness to multidisciplinary pain management from study inception to the present. Cohorts, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials will be included. Independent screening for eligible studies will be completed by a total of four researchers using defined criteria. Data extraction will be executed by two researchers. Study heterogeneity will be estimated using the I2 index. A meta-analysis will be performed using random effects models. Publication bias will be evaluated by means of funnel plots and Egger's test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed study does not involve collection of primary data. Therefore, no ethical approval is required. The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented in a peer-reviewed journal and at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236424.


Assuntos
Manejo da Dor , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Estudos Interdisciplinares , Metanálise como Assunto , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
8.
Int J Ment Health Syst ; 16(1): 46, 2022 Sep 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36056363

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is no pooled evidence regarding the prevalence and potential associated factors of depression among cancer patients in Ethiopian community. Hence, the current review aimed to examine the prevalence and associated factors of depression among cancer patients in Ethiopia. METHOD: A computerized systematic literature search was made in MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Each database was searched from its start date to June 2020. More over we will also add scholars and gray literature consultations. All articles will be included if they were published in English, which evaluated the prevalence and associated factors of depression among cancer patients in Ethiopia. Pooled estimations with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated by using inspection of funnel plots and statistical tests. DISCUSSION: Since we are using existing anonymized data, ethical approval is not required for this study. Our results can be used to guide clinical decisions about the most efficient way to prevent and treat depression among cancer patients. Systematic review registration Submitted to Prospero.

9.
Indian J Psychiatry ; 64(4): 342-348, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36060719

RESUMO

Background: No analysis of redundant or duplicate publications, deemed unethical and unscientific, has been undertaken in psychiatric literature. Aim: To analyze the proportion and patterns of redundant publications associated with index articles published in two major Indian psychiatry journals. Methods: Index articles were original papers published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry and the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine between 2015 and 2017. Using a systematic search strategy that combined author names and article keywords, we combed the literature to identify and characterize redundant publications related to these index articles. Redundant publications were classified into one of the following categories using a priori definitions: dual, suspected dual, salami slicing, meat extender, and extended sample publication. Results: From 324 index articles screened, a total of 27 articles (8.4%) were identified to have 32 associated redundant publications of the following types: dual (n = 3), suspected dual (n = 2), salami slicing (n = 22), meat extender (n = 3), and extended sample publication (n = 2). A majority of the redundant articles (n = 23, 71.9%) failed to clearly cross-reference the prior publication(s). We also identified nine non-redundant but related publications with no proper cross-referencing in five of them. Conclusion: Redundant publications are a common practice in the psychiatry journals screened. Salami slicing is the most common form of redundancy, with no proper cross-referencing in most cases. Concerted efforts are needed to detect and deal with this concerning practice that undermines both science and ethics.

10.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0273693, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36040919

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Several teaching methods have been used in clinical nursing teaching to increase quality and efficiency, but disagreements over their effects persist. This study will evaluate the effects of five teaching methods in clinical nursing on nursing students' knowledge, skill scores, learning satisfaction, and patients' satisfaction. METHODS: We will conduct searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), China Biological literature database (CBM), Wanfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ) up to April 2022. Relevant randomized controlled trials meeting the eligibility criteria will be included. And the study selection and data extraction will be independently screened for eligibility by two authors. The quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted using Rev Man, Stata, and R software. Statistical analyses including homogeneity tests, sensitivity analysis, transitivity tests, consistency tests, and publication bias will be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal research ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY2021120040.


Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa , China , Humanos , Metanálise como Assunto , Metanálise em Rede
11.
Science ; 377(6607): 699-700, 2022 08 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35951688

RESUMO

University of Delaware finding vindicates whistleblowers.


Assuntos
Ecologia , Má Conduta Científica , Denúncia de Irregularidades , Culpa , Humanos , Universidades
12.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(16)2022 Aug 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36012275

RESUMO

This review is aimed to provide to an "educated but non-expert" readership and an overview of the scientific, commercial, and ethical importance of investigating the crystalline forms (polymorphs, hydrates, and co-crystals) of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). The existence of multiple crystal forms of an API is relevant not only for the selection of the best solid material to carry through the various stages of drug development, including the choice of dosage and of excipients suitable for drug development and marketing, but also in terms of intellectual property protection and/or extension. This is because the physico-chemical properties, such as solubility, dissolution rate, thermal stability, processability, etc., of the solid API may depend, sometimes dramatically, on the crystal form, with important implications on the drug's ultimate efficacy. This review will recount how the scientific community and the pharmaceutical industry learned from the catastrophic consequences of the appearance of new, more stable, and unsuspected crystal forms. The relevant aspects of hydrates, the most common pharmaceutical solid solvates, and of co-crystals, the association of two or more solid components in the same crystalline materials, will also be discussed. Examples will be provided of how to tackle multiple crystal forms with screening protocols and theoretical approaches, and ultimately how to turn into discovery and innovation the purposed preparation of new crystalline forms of an API.


Assuntos
Excipientes , Cristalização , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Solubilidade
13.
Curr Med Res Opin ; : 1-11, 2022 Aug 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35993742

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of Research Ethics Committee (REC) representatives in the European Union (EU) on what the status quo is in terms of RECs' activities after the approval of trial protocols for clinical studies. METHOD: This is a qualitative study. The participants in this study are members or representatives of a research ethics committee from the member countries of the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) and the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was the method to assess interview transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews of REC representatives from 19 countries across Europe reveals that REC post-approval activities are predominantly limited to review and approval of protocol amendments. The majority of the RECs do not have mandatory continuing reviews or receipt of notifications of adverse events or protocol violations. In fact, most post-approval activities are the remit of the regulatory authorities. The interviewed members were also of the opinion that RECs in the EU do not have the legislative support, the organizational structure, the expert staff nor time to do active post approval follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Post-approval follow-up activities for clinical studies by RECs is a valuable resource and means for early detection and resolution of protocol deviations and violations. However, a majority of RECs within Europe do not have active post-approval follow-up of approved protocols. The interviews revealed that resource challenges such as time, personnel, and organizational structure contribute to the lack of follow-up by RECs. Some RECs in the represented countries do not identify post-approval follow-up as part of their mandate but instead place emphasis on the culture of trust between the RECs and researchers. Current EU Regulations do not directly address the role of the REC after the approval of clinical trials.

14.
Indian J Urol ; 38(3): 184-190, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35983114

RESUMO

Introduction: The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi. Methods: The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled. Results: A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals. Conclusion: Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone.

16.
Account Res ; : 1-20, 2022 Aug 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35938392

RESUMO

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

18.
Account Res ; : 1-14, 2022 Aug 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35952654

RESUMO

Expressions of concern (EoC) can reduce the adverse effects of unreliable publications by alerting readers to concerns about publication integrity while assessment is undertaken. We investigated the use of EoC for 463 publications by two research groups for which we notified concerns about publication integrity to 142 journals and 44 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By December 2021, 95 papers had had an EoC, and 83 were retracted without an EoC. Median times from notification of concerns to EoC (10.4mo) or retraction without EoC (13.1mo) were similar. Among the 95 EoCs, 29 (30.5%) were followed by retraction after a median of 5.4mo, none was lifted, and 66 (69.5%) remained in place after a median of 18.1mo. Publishers with >10 notified publications issued EoCs for 0-81.8% of papers: for several publishers the proportions of notified papers for which EoCs were issued varied considerably between the 2 research groups. EoCs were issued for >30% of notified publications of randomized clinical trials and letters to the editor, and <20% of other types of research. These results demonstrate inconsistent application of EoCs between and within publishers, and prolonged times to issue and resolve EoCs.

19.
Account Res ; : 1-12, 2022 Aug 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35953452

RESUMO

Some institutions have issued blacklists of academic journals in China and use them as a basis for research evaluation. However, due to a lack of transparent formulation criteria, the characteristics of blacklisted journals remain unclear. Using blacklisted academic journals of the East China University of Political Science and Law, this study analyzed differences in characteristics between blacklisted and non-blacklisted journals via web surveys and statistical analyses. Statistically significant differences were detected for article review time, article processing charges (APCs), the number of editorial board members, and the journal impact factor. There was no significant difference in the number of editors. While there is scientific merit in creating and publishing a blacklist of academic journals, the list development process requires more rigorous evaluation and a public process of development.

20.
J Acad Ethics ; : 1-24, 2022 Aug 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35975128

RESUMO

In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...