Even ten years after, sound data are worth to be published. Below is an example. Actually a great Christmas story.
Here below is a link toward an interesting talk which occurred at the 20th Cochrane Coloquium in New Zealand between September 30th and October 3rd of 2012.
More videos of the conference are available here
Cochrane reviews constitute a precious mean of disseminating the findings of the research in medicine. They pave the way for more evidence-based medicine in the practice of care.
- Cochrane Review finds no benefit from routine health checks (engineeringevil.com)
- No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study (gaia-health.com)
- ‘Evidence-Based’ Medicine: A Coin’s Flip Worth of Certainty (activistpost.com)
- Cochrane Review finds no benefit from routine health checks (medicalxpress.com)
A tremendous post on the question to know whether information technologies trump the scholarly publishing or whether the academic publishing subordinates itself to the information technologies. In my view the response is that both statements are true because the respective influence is not at all linear but instead pretty much interactive. As for the sponsored payments by the tobacco industry for author-paid open access publishing, the expression of concern is also relevant for the traditional publishing because private corporations can very well sponsor subscriptions in reader-paid publishing. The key point is the conflict of interest disclosure (which is perhaps more easy to uncover in the open access publishing where the payment is made on behalf of the author).
- Backlash Against Academic Publishing Continues to Grow (michaelgeist.ca)
- Provocative proposal to force scholarly publishers to respect open-access wishes of their unpaid contributors (boingboing.net)
- Harvard Libraries join the fight for open access (scienceblogs.com)
- Harvard advisory council promotes open access publishing, says journals are too expensive (theverge.com)
Originally posted on The Scholarly Kitchen:
Does scholarly publishing drive information technology (IT)? Or does IT drive scholarly publishing?
If you believe the former, you essentially agree that academic culture trumps technology — that incentives reflecting a deeper belief system ultimately blunt and shape any intrusion of technology; legal and cultural precedents largely withstand the whims of technological change; and human nature remains fundamentally the same despite a new veneer of technological capabilities.
If you believe the latter, you probably instinctively feel that technological revolutions will inevitably yield social revolutions on a magnitude as great or greater than the technology itself would suggest; that legal and social contracts can crumble under the pressure of technological change; and that human nature can be overcome if surrounded by enough technology.
Open access advocates and self-anointed revolutionaries often come from the “technology trumps culture” camp. I remember asking Harold Varmus in the early days of e-Biomed why it…
View original 1,671 more words
Free access to publicly funded research
How can people access freely to publicly funded research results?
From two things one: – either the government agencies buy the copyrights of privates scholarly publishers and then make available articles on governmental web sites
– or it publish himself the final reports or the intermediate or progress reports that the publicly funded researchers have produced.
But one thing for sure, since the recent “research works act” bill, the government or the federal agencies have no more the possibility to force or to mandate for free, by rule, the dissemination of the private scholarly publications issued from the peer reviewed journals.
A third possibility should be the government using the open access journals, but in that case instead of buying the copyrights afterward, federal agencies will be charged before the publication procedure.
Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that the fundamental difference between a final report of a research work and a peer reviewed article issued from the same research work are: – the length (average length for a report: 60 pages vs 20 for an article), – the use of technical and complex words in the writing (because the articles are peer reviewed and aimed at the intention of a wider number of readers, mostly outside the institution, technical words and context have to be explained), – the transfer of responsibility in case of mistake or falsification of data (private publisher are eager to retract the article if a falsification or a conflict of interest is disclosed but will a federal agencies do the same?) and last but not least – scholarly publications are the products of multinational, world-wide expanded, globalised enterprises that are independent from the policy of a single state. And this must be seen as a guarantee of the independence of science from political pressure like, for example, the recent attempt by the US government to stop the publication by a Netherlander searchers team of their findings on the H5N1 flu virus mutation capacity (see here and here for more information).
Below are three references if you want to read more on the topic of the dissemination of research works:
1)My Argument for Public Access to Research Reports
2)Publishers Applaud “Research Works Act,”Bipartisan Legislation To End
Government Mandates on Private-Sector Scholarly Publishing
3)A BILLTo ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-
reviewed research works by the private sector.
- Stop U.S. legislation that would block public access to publicly funded research (creativecommons.org)
- Many NIH-funded clinical trials go unpublished over two years after completion (with ClinicalTrials.gov link for many trial study results) (jflahiff.wordpress.com)
- Scholarly Societies: It’s time to abandon the AAP over The Research Works Act [Confessions of a Science Librarian] (scienceblogs.com)
- Congress wants to limit open access publishing for the US government’s $28B/year subsidized research (boingboing.net)
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,200 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.
Look at this incredible video. The man who is talking is a medical practitioner who has become an epidemiologist. He belongs to a Cochrane group. The Cochrane groups chase false evidence-based medicine by reviewing all the published studies on a particular public health issue (like preventive behaviors, cancer screening, pharmaceutical industry lobbying and so on). It’s an awesome one man show made by a Doctor!
- How do we battle bad science? (laurieanichols.wordpress.com)
- What eight years of writing the Bad Science column have taught me | Ben Goldacre (guardian.co.uk)
- Bad Science (justwritewhite.wordpress.com)
How to communicate Public Health Data to the Public?
The department of health and human services, the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute are three major official institutions implied in public health in the USA. They publish an interesting document explaining how to communicate scientific quantitative public health data to lay audiences (ie general public, policy makers and press journalists). In the introduction the Office of Communications and Education of the
National Cancer Institute describes the objective of the document as follows: to answer to the question “why should I care?”
To give sense to scientific data is actually a difficult exercise. As a scientist, lay audiences give you an a priori trust which you must not betray. Maintaining the trust between the general public and scientists is a very high ethical responsibility. This book will help scientists to send a message that sounds rationale and clear for the public.
Read the entire report: communicating data to lay audience
- NCI Announces Guide to Communicating Data to Lay Audiences (jflahiff.wordpress.com)