首页> 外文OA文献 >Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.
【2h】

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

机译:生物医学和健康领域的编辑研究和出版过程:埃斯特夫基金会讨论组的报告,2012年12月。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.
机译:尽管世界上有超过2万种生物医学期刊,但是对生物医学和卫生保健期刊的编辑工作和出版过程进行的研究却很少。 2012年12月,非营利性科学机构Esteve基金会通过科学交流和讨论促进药物治疗的进展,组织了由7位编辑和/或同行评审生物医学出版专家组成的讨论小组。他们介绍了过去编辑研究的结果,讨论了缺乏竞争性的资助计划和专业杂志来传播编辑研究,并报告了行为不当和利益冲突政策的多样性,以及对报告准则的遵守情况。此外,他们报告说编辑不愿调查不当行为的指控或不愿增加卫生研究中的数据共享水平。最后,他们得出结论,如果编辑要保持科学知识的守门人,则应重申对科学记录的完整性和所发表数据的完整性的关注。此外,应该进行更多的研究,以了解为什么许多期刊不遵循编辑标准,以及编辑从事编辑研究时面临的障碍。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号