Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 758
Filtrar
2.
Infant Behav Dev ; 55: 69-76, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30933839

RESUMO

Replicable research and open science are of value to our field and to society at large, but most universities provide no incentives to adopt these practices. Instead, current incentive structures favor novel research, which has led to a situation in which few researchers take the time to do replications, share protocols, or share data. Obviously, several approaches to remedy this situation are possible. However, little progress can be made if becoming involved in such activities reduces a researcher's chances of rank and status advancement and other rewards. I describe in this article the way my department has modified our incentive structure to tackle this problem, including how the changes influence my research as a developmental psychologist. Finally, I offer suggestions for faculty who wish to initiate similar changes in their institutions.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Motivação , Revisão por Pares/normas , Psicologia do Desenvolvimento/normas , Universidades/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Humanos , Revisão por Pares/métodos , Psicologia do Desenvolvimento/métodos
7.
Nat Rev Cancer ; 19(3): 121, 2019 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30737456
10.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 107(1): 57-61, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30598649

RESUMO

Objectives: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews. Methods: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews. Results: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals. Discussion: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.


Assuntos
Manuscritos como Assunto , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/normas , Revisão por Pares/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , PubMed/normas , Controle de Qualidade , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Animais , Bibliometria , Humanos
11.
J Oncol Pharm Pract ; 25(1): 94-100, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29498322

RESUMO

For pharmacists, the first years after graduation are spent developing their knowledge base, advancing as a practitioner, and honing their abilities as healthcare providers and drug information experts. New practitioners encounter many challenges during this time, which for many include publishing original research or reviewing manuscripts for colleagues and medical journals. Inexperience navigating the publication process, from submission to receipt of (and response to) peer review commentary, is often cited as a major barrier to timely publication of resident and new practitioner research. Serving as a peer reviewer in turn provides the new practitioner with insight on this process and can be an enlightening experience used to garner confidence in subsequently submitting their own formal manuscripts. A number of publications describing steps for peer review are available, however, many of these articles address more experienced reviewers or critique the peer review process itself. No definitive resource exists for new pharmacy practitioners interested in developing their peer review skills. The information presented in this summative guide should be used in conjunction with practice opportunities to help new practitioners develop proficiency at peer review.


Assuntos
Revisão por Pares , Pesquisa Farmacêutica , Assistência Farmacêutica , Humanos , Revisão por Pares/métodos , Revisão por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas
14.
BMC Med Educ ; 18(1): 135, 2018 Jun 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29895284

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The German quality assurance programme for evaluating work capacity is based on peer review that evaluates the quality of medical experts' reports. Low reliability is thought to be due to systematic differences among peers. For this purpose, we developed a curriculum for a standardized peer-training (SPT). This study investigates, whether the SPT increases the inter-rater reliability of social medical physicians participating in a cross-institutional peer review. METHODS: Forty physicians from 16 regional German Pension Insurances were subjected to SPT. The three-day training course consist of nine educational objectives recorded in a training manual. The SPT is split into a basic module providing basic information about the peer review and an advanced module for small groups of up to 12 peers training peer review using medical reports. Feasibility was tested by assessing selection, comprehensibility and subjective use of contents delivered, the trainers' delivery and design of training materials. The effectiveness of SPT was determined by evaluating peer concordance using three anonymised medical reports assessed by each peer. Percentage agreement and Fleiss' kappa (κm) were calculated. Concordance was compared with review results from a previous unstructured, non-standardized peer-training programme (control condition) performed by 19 peers from 12 German Pension Insurances departments. The control condition focused exclusively on the application of peer review in small groups. No specifically training materials, methods and trainer instructions were used. RESULTS: Peer-training was shown to be feasible. The level of subjective confidence in handling the peer review instrument varied between 70 and 90%. Average percentage agreement for the main outcome criterion was 60.2%, resulting in a κm of 0.39. By comparison, the average percentage concordance was 40.2% and the κm was 0.12 for the control condition. CONCLUSION: Concordance with the main criterion was relevant but not significant (p = 0.2) higher for SPT than for the control condition. Fleiss' kappa coefficient showed that peer concordance was higher for SPT than randomly expected. Nevertheless, a score of 0.39 for the main criterion indicated only fair inter-rater reliability, considerably lower than the conventional standard of 0.7 for adequate reliability.


Assuntos
Corpo Clínico/educação , Grupo Associado , Revisão por Pares/normas , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Currículo , Estudos de Viabilidade , Alemanha , Humanos , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Médicos de Família/educação , Médicos de Família/normas , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Avaliação da Capacidade de Trabalho
16.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ; 19(5): 1151-1154, 2018 05 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29801392

RESUMO

Today, research is seen as an investment to promote innovation and maintain sustainable social-economic development in all societies. The growth of scientific products and the expansion of knowledge in different scientific fields have entailed more attention to assessments and the impact evaluation of both outcome and process of researchers in all fields. In light of this need, policymakers in the medical field have paid more attention to evaluating the outcomes of research in terms of its impact on the society using many different indicators. In this short communication, the performance of scholarly published scientific products are discussed and the indicators that measure such impacts are evaluated and recommendation is given to APJCP' editorial board on how to align its activities toward achieving better impact and scientometric measures for the journal.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/classificação , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Guias como Assunto , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Revisão por Pares/normas , Comunicação , Humanos , Pesquisadores
17.
Dermatol Online J ; 24(3)2018 Mar 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29634877

RESUMO

This commentary considers the reasons for rejection of manuscripts during the peer-review process. Poor methodology, inappropriate statistical analysis, irrelevance, and technical errors are cited frequently as motives for manuscript rejection. Guidance, such as selecting an applicable journal, conducting a rigorous study, and writing efficiently, is provided for authors to prevent initial rejection. Researchers are reassured that rejection is a common consequence of peer-review and subsequent submissions to other journals are often successful publications.


Assuntos
Dermatologia , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Revisão por Pares/normas , Redação/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos
18.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 115(11): 2595-2599, 2018 03 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29531032

RESUMO

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators, healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.


Assuntos
Publicações/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Humanos , Revisão por Pares/normas , Controle de Qualidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas
19.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 115(11): 2632-2639, 2018 03 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29531095

RESUMO

It appears paradoxical that science is producing outstanding new results and theories at a rapid rate at the same time that researchers are identifying serious problems in the practice of science that cause many reports to be irreproducible and invalid. Certainly, the practice of science needs to be improved, and scientists are now pursuing this goal. However, in this perspective, we argue that this seeming paradox is not new, has always been part of the way science works, and likely will remain so. We first introduce the paradox. We then review a wide range of challenges that appear to make scientific success difficult. Next, we describe the factors that make science work-in the past, present, and presumably also in the future. We then suggest that remedies for the present practice of science need to be applied selectively so as not to slow progress and illustrate with a few examples. We conclude with arguments that communication of science needs to emphasize not just problems but the enormous successes and benefits that science has brought and is now bringing to all elements of modern society.


Assuntos
Pesquisa/normas , Ciência/normas , Comunicação , Humanos , Pessoal de Laboratório/psicologia , Pessoal de Laboratório/normas , Revisão por Pares/normas , Publicações/normas , Publicações/estatística & dados numéricos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Recursos Humanos
20.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 34(1): 111-119, 2018 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29415784

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE. METHODS: Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion. RESULTS: In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE. CONCLUSIONS: Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.


Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Coleta de Dados , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos , Capacitação em Serviço , Revisão por Pares/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA