Nerve endings on our fingertips have the same ability of performing complex neural computations as we can find in our brain. Read more…
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…
Dive guides monitoring sharks on coral reef at similar level to telemetry.
Shark data collected by citizen scientists may be as reliable as data collected using automated tools, according to results published April 23, 2014, in the open access journal PLOS ONE by Gabriel Vianna from The University of Western Australia and colleagues.
Shark populations are declining globally, and scientists lack data to estimate the conservation status of populations for many shark species. Citizen science may be a useful and cost-effective means to increase knowledge of shark populations on coral reefs, but scientists do not yet know enough about how data collected by untrained observers compares to results from traditional research methods. To better understand the reliability of datasets collected by citizen science initiatives, researchers in this study compared reef shark sightings counted by experienced dive guides (citizen scientists), with data collected from tagged reef sharks by an automated tracking tool (acoustic telemetry). 62 dive guides collected data during over 2,300 dives using standardized research protocols, including reporting on the dive site, date, species, counts, estimated depth, current, visibility, and number of tourist divers in the group. Both data sets were collected at coral reefs on the Pacific island of Palau over a period of five years.
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.