In a PLOS Medicine guest editorial, Paul Glasziou, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Bond University in Australia, explores how open access publications could help moderate and reduce the vast waste of global medical research.
Continuing on from his previous work, which highlighted how most of the world’s expenditure on medical research was thrown away, Glasziou outlines how bad the situation is and suggests how it might be improved. Subscription-based academic journals make money by through copyrights assigned by authors to publishers who lock the articles behind paywalls. Open access models, in which journals charge a publication fee and then make research and related content fully and immediately available to all, stand to aid the dissemination of knowledge and to improve its quality. Read more…
I have recently developed a report with the title, “7 All-Time Highly Cited Papers in Top 49 Publications of the World”.
This report has presented 7 highly cited papers from top 49 publications of the world according to Google Scholar, which are arranged by Google Scholar according to h-index. Moreover, 7 additional journals having impact factor more than 28, which are not mentioned in those top 49 publications such as “Cancer Journal for Clinicians”, are also presented in the report with the list of 7 highly cited papers from each journal
Research Finds Discrepancies Between Trial Results Reported on Clinical Trial Registry and in High-Impact Journals
Chicago – During a one year period, among clinical trials published in high-impact journals that reported results on a public clinical trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov), nearly all had at least 1 discrepancy in the study group, intervention, or results reported between the 2 sources, including discrepancies in the designated primary end points for the studies, according to a study in the March 12 issue of JAMA.
The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act expanded requirements for ClinicalTrials.gov, mandating results reporting within 12 months of trial completion for all FDA-regulated medical products. “To our knowledge, no studies have examined reporting and accuracy of trial results information. Accordingly, we compared trial information and results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov with corresponding peer-reviewed publications,” write Jessica E. Becker, A.B., of the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.
Chicago – An analysis of research on peer review finds that studies aimed at improving methods of peer review and reporting of biomedical research are underrepresented and lack dedicated funding, according to a study in the March 12 issue of JAMA.
Mario Malicki, M.D., M.A., of the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia, and colleagues analyzed research presented at the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (PRC) since 1989. The first PRC was organized to “subject the editorial review process to some of the rigorous scrutiny that editors and reviewers demand of the scientists whose work they are assessing.” The researchers collected data on authorship, time to publication, declared funding sources, article availability, and citation counts in Web of Science. The analysis included 614 abstracts.
The arXiv, an electronic preprint scientific paper repository, receives on average 7000 submissions per month. That’s a lot of papers and text to tackle, if you’re Cornell graduate student Alexander Alemi.
Alemi is analyzing text within months of arXiv aritcles with help from three other Cornell scientists, including arXiv developer Paul Ginsparg. In the past, Ginsparg has toyed with ideas for a different arXiv that never came to fruition. After clicking on an article, for example, the site would suggest related articles and authors. In a way, Alemi hopes to resurrect this idea and eventually bring it to arXiv users. Read more…