JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute. ⋯ A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.
-
Although they are preliminary and have undergone only limited peer review, research abstracts at scientific meetings may receive prominent attention in the news media. We sought to describe news coverage of abstracts, characterize the research, and determine subsequent full publication in the medical literature. ⋯ Abstracts at scientific meetings receive substantial attention in the high-profile media. A substantial number of the studies remain unpublished, precluding evaluation in the scientific community.
-
The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. ⋯ Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.
-
To determine whether the views expressed in a research paper are accurate representations of contributors' opinions about the research being reported. ⋯ A research paper rarely represents the opinions of those scientists whose work it reports. The findings described herein reveal evidence of (self-)censored criticism, obscured meanings, confused assessment of implications, and failures to indicate directions for future research. There is now empirical support for the introduction of structured discussion sections in research papers. Editors might also explore ways to recover the plurality of contributors' opinions.
-
Citation by other authors is important in the dissemination of published science, but factors predicting it are little studied. ⋯ In this cohort of published research, commonly used measures of study methodology and design did not predict the frequency of citations or the importance of citing journals. Positive outcome bias was not evident. The impact factor of the original publishing journal was more important than any other variable, suggesting that the journal in which a study is published may be as important as traditional measures of study quality in ensuring dissemination.