A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Hilda Bastian considers post-publication commenting and the cultural changes that are needed to better capture this intellectual effort.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Related collections

Most cited references 18

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

Tammy C Hoffmann, Paul P Glasziou, David Moher … (2014)

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

0 comments Cited 304 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective.

Reshma Jagsi, Elizabeth A Guancial, Cynthia Worobey … (2006)

Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.

0 comments Cited 239 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Tom Tregenza, Lonnie Aarssen, Amber Budden … (2007)

Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.

0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS Med

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS Med

Journal ID (publisher-id): PLoS

Journal ID (pmc): plosmed

Title: PLoS Medicine

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )

ISSN (Print): 1549-1277

ISSN (Electronic): 1549-1676

Publication date Collection: December 2014

Publication date (Electronic): 30 December 2014

Volume: 11

Issue: 12

Electronic Location Identifier: e1001772

Affiliations

[1]Scientist and Editor, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America

Author notes

* E-mail: hilda.bastian@ 123456nih.gov

HB is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine, and lead editor for PubMed Commons, a forum for scientific discourse.

Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: HB. Wrote the paper: HB. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: HB. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: HB.

Article

Publisher ID: PMEDICINE-D-14-03449

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772

PMC ID: 4280106

PubMed ID: 25548904

SO-VID: 3f668404-0396-4bbf-82f4-09a91d26e47b

License:

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

History

Page count

Pages: 3

Funding

HB has received funding from the Intramural Research Program of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

A Stronger Post-Publication Culture Is Needed for Better Science

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Inflamed lung in vitro co-culture models

Most cited references 18

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective.

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 16

Most referenced authors 451