#viadam

[chaotic30]

Se é louco cuzão Essa mina é sniper #viadam #cwb #curitiba #cuzao (em Largo Da Ordem - Ctba)

[speblog]

Details of The Content Mine; an ambitious project which seeks to 'liberate all the facts in the scientific literature' use machine reading techniques.

[speblog]

Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels

[speblog]

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published but in the electronic age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal’s physical availability, reputation, or Impact Factor. We compare the strength of the relationship between journals’ Impact Factors and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers’ citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals’ Impact Factors. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the strength of the relation between Impact Factors and paper citations has been decreasing

[speblog]

The h-index is a useful summary measure of output and quality of health services researchers. However, any accurate interpretation of bibliometric measures needs to take into account a person's research discipline.

[speblog]

This article reviews traditional and current perspectives on randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies relative to the economic implications for public healthcare stakeholders.Recent findingsIt takes an average of 17 years to bring 14% of original research into clinical practice. Results from high-quality observational studies may complement limited RCTs in primary and secondary literature bases, and enhance the incorporation of sound evidence-based guidelines. Observational findings from comprehensive medical databases may offer valuable clues on the effectiveness and relevance of public healthcare interventions. Major expenditures associated with RCTs relate to recruitment, inappropriate site selection, conduct and reporting. Application of business strategies and economic evaluation tools, in addition to the planning and conduct of RCTs, may enhance clinical trial site performances.SummaryConsidering the strengths and limitations of each study type, clinical researchers should explore the contextual worthiness of either design in promulgating knowledge. They should focus on quality of conduct and reporting that may allow for the liberation of limited public and private clinical research funding

[speblog]

Concerns that the growing competition for funding and citations might distort science are frequently discussed, but have not been verified directly. Of the hypothesized problems, perhaps the most worrying is a worsening of positive-outcome bias. A system that disfavours negative results not only distorts the scientific literature directly, but might also discourage high-risk projects and pressure scientists to fabricate and falsify their data. This study analysed over 4,600 papers published in all disciplines between 1990 and 2007, measuring the frequency of papers that, having declared to have “tested” a hypothesis, reported a positive support for it. The overall frequency of positive supports has grown by over 22% between 1990 and 2007, with significant differences between disciplines and countries. The increase was stronger in the social and some biomedical disciplines. The United States had published, over the years, significantly fewer positive results than Asian countries (and particularly Japan) but more than European countries (and in particular the United Kingdom). Methodological artefacts cannot explain away these patterns, which support the hypotheses that research is becoming less pioneering and/or that the objectivity with which results are produced and published is decreasing.

[speblog]

Negative results are commonly assumed to attract fewer readers and citations, which would explain why journals in most disciplines tend to publish too many positive and statistically significant findings. This study verified this assumption by counting the citation frequencies of papers that, having declared to “test” a hypothesis, reported a “positive” (full or partial) or a “negative” (null or negative) support. Controlling for various confounders, positive results were cited on average 32 % more often. The citation advantage, however, was unequally distributed across disciplines (classified as in the Essential Science Indicators database). Using Space Science as the reference category, the citation differential was positive and formally statistically significant only in Neuroscience & Behaviour, Molecular Biology & Genetics, Clinical Medicine, and Plant and Animal Science. Overall, the effect was significantly higher amongst applied disciplines, and in the biological compared to the physical and the social sciences. The citation differential was not a significant predictor of the actual frequency of positive results amongst the 20 broad disciplines considered. Although future studies should attempt more fine-grained assessments, these results suggest that publication bias may have different causes and require different solutions depending on the field considered.