A new paper sheds light on how current publication practices may distort science. The article, by researchers in the US, uncovers some of the flaws in the current system and wonders whether the digital age will cause the system of publication to evolve yet further and exorcise 'the winner's curse' {1}.
By taking the process of scientific publication back to basics, the authors are able to predict many negative effects from the current model of journal-based scientific publishing. Herding, the economic term used to describe 'follow-the-leader' behaviour, is proposed to narrow and focus the field of research on certain areas that are determined by the papers with the highest profiles. 'The winner's curse', the theory that the winner in an auction will, on average, have paid more that the item is worth, is likened to the proposed exaggeration of results of papers in the most desirable journals. The authors, possibly controversially, suggest that trials with negative results could be published with the same frequency as those with positive results since they should be judged on the quality of the experiment rather than simply positive findings.
The digital age has already extended the reaches of personal networks and allowed personal opinion to be heard across continents. Journal clubs and isolated researchers can highlight the best articles of their reading to others using services like F1000 and, given the apparent limitations of conventional publishing models, surely this can only be a good thing.
Reference: {1} Young et al., PLoS Med 2008, 5:e201 [PMID:18844432]
]]>
Congratulations to all of our members who have been recognised for their contribution to medical research by the NIHR!
One hundred of the most outstanding leaders of patient- and people-based research have been appointed as Senior Investigators to reward those who lead the way in health and social care research. The 100 Senior Investigators were selected from NIHR Investigators through an open competition overseen by an international peer-review panel. They were assessed on the international excellence and volume of their research, the importance of their research in the short-to-medium term to patients and/or the public, and the impact of their research in improvements in healthcare and public health.
Professor Sally C. Davies, Director General of Research and Development, at the Department of Health said: "The NIHR wants to support and encourage the people who are leading clinical and applied health research that is of direct relevance to the needs of the people of this country".
The research led by the NIHR Senior Investigators targets significant health issues which affect large numbers of the UK population. These include cancer, mental health, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
F1000M would like to congratulate the following Faculty Members:
Paul Glasziou, Research Methodology
Michael Levin, Neurological Disorders
Simon Lovestone, Psychiatry
Frank Nestle, Dermatology
Charles Pusey, Nephrology
Steven Sacks, Nephrology
Nilesh Samani, Cardiovascular Disorders
David Scott, Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology
Rosalind Smyth, Respiratory Disorders
Tim Spector, Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology
Alan Thompson, Neurological Disorders
Nicholas Wood, Neurological Disorders
His friend and colleague, Angela M. Reiersen, wrote this tribute to Dr Todd:
"Dr Todd obtained his Ph.D. in Biology at the University of Texas at Dallas and his M.D. at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He completed his general psychiatry residency at Stanford Medical School and his child & adolescent psychiatry fellowship at Washington University in St. Louis.
Much of Dr Todd's research focused on genetic and environmental influences on early onset psychiatric disorders. His work included studies of early-onset mood disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders.
Over the years, Dr Todd mentored a large number of young scientists, many of which have gone on to become leaders in the field of psychiatric research. Dr Todd had a real talent for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of his trainees and suggesting training opportunities appropriate for their skills and interests. Despite his own high level of success, Dr Todd was very approachable. He was very generous in providing resources to his trainees, and he made every effort to promote their success.
Dr Todd will be greatly missed by many friends and colleagues around the world. Fortunately, his influence will continue to benefit children with psychiatric disorders through the ongoing work of his many mentees and colleagues."
F1000 Medicine greatly appreciated Richard Todd's valuable contributions and constant enthusiasm for the service. We would like to offer our sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
Read Richard Todd's evaluations here.
]]>
Every month, we will provide links to the full free text of five top evaluations from some of the world's most eminent clinicians and researchers. Don't miss out on this great opportunity to sample the service - sign up today!
For regular updates direct to your inbox, all you need to do is send a blank email to join-f1000m-marketing@news.biomedcentral.com
In the meantime, you can view the latest F1000 Medicine update here, or enjoy a free 3-week trial.
]]>
The editorial states that "peer review is fundamental to scientific progress, and the achievements of science in the last century are an endorsement of its value ... Despite its successes, peer review attracts its share of criticism. Reviewers can exhibit bias or only support expected, pedestrian results ... Reviews improve most papers, some dramatically so ... But peer review is under increasing stress, in ways that are perhaps not fully appreciated".
The article emphasizes that "the way scientists and research institutions are evaluated needs revision" and that "inappropriately high value is placed on publication in certain journals. Increased competition for the limited slots in these preferred journals exacerbates the natural aggravations of peer review experienced by authors".
The article goes on to state that "Efforts like the Faculty of 1000, where experts scan a large set of biology journals and select the best contributions wherever published, can be very helpful. Such efforts can reduce the pressures that many group leaders feel from young scientists, who often place undue emphasis on publishing in a few high-profile journals--where the criteria used for evaluation may not match their research, no matter how valuable the contribution".
At F1000, we agree -- articles from smaller, less widely read journals can be just important. The F1000 Factor provides an alternative measure to the impact factor and is based on the opinion of eminent members of the medical community, irrespective of what journal the article comes from.
Reference:
Alberts et al., Science 2008, 321:15, DOI:10.1126/science.1162115
]]>
We loved this highly informative report detailing how statistics such as the impact factor and h-index are misused, not well understood and not well studied. Robert Adler and his colleagues aim to point out the limitations of using citation statistics, as well as how to make better use of them.
This superb article also calls into question the accuracy, objectivity and simplicity of using such statistics as the sole measure of research quality:
"We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research-citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information ... But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool."
We agree - that's why the F1000 Factor is so useful. It provides an alternative measure to the impact factor and is based on the opinion of eminent members of the medical community, irrespective of what journal the article comes from.
The Adler et al paper is receiving a lot of attention and is yet more evidence adding to the ever-growing base that our reliance on, and trust of, such statistics may need to be re-assessed.
Read more about the F1000 Factor here.
References:
1. http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
]]>Designed to make sense of the vast and growing body of scholarly literature in the fields of medicine and biology, our award-winning F1000 services comprise over 4,500 of the world's most distinguished and respected clinicians and researchers who highlight recent key articles and provide their opinion on why these articles are important to the community.
By making browsing and searching our content freely available, we at F1000 are offering you the opportunity to get a flavour of the cutting-edge articles that make a difference to clinicians in their everyday practice and biomedical scientists in their research, saving you invaluable time by highlighting their significance.
Read more or take a free trial. ]]>
We think this is yet another interesting piece of literature highlighting the scientific community's dissatisfaction with the continued use of the impact factor to judge the quality of scientists and their work, as well as rank the institutions to which they belong.
The paper looks at the humble beginnings of the impact factor, how it has developed over the last 50 years or so and how its current use is affecting the scientific community. Brumback goes on to write, "Now would seem to be the appropriate time for the academic community to demand valid metrics to assess published scientific material".
He also states, "At a time when both the scientific community and the general public are lamenting the lack of transparency in science (particularly in relation to industry-supported research), it is unconscionable for academicians to deliver their careers into the hands of a for-profit company like Thomson Scientific that secretively derives a number to pigeonhole their research efforts".
The fact that this debate is being discussed in such a lively manner in some of the 'smaller impact' journals speaks volumes for its wide ranging appeal and highlights the need for a satisfactory alternative/compromise to be developed as soon as possible.
References:
{1} Brumback, Journal of Child Neurology 2008, 23:365-367. "Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma" [PMID:18401031].
]]>
We would like to thank all of the Faculty Members that stopped by to say hello and wish us good luck. Your continued support and participation in the service is very much appreciated.
Thank you!
]]>This award acknowledges achievements in biomedical research that will have a significant impact on human health. Professor Marc Feldmann and Sir Ravinder Maini have both played a crucial role in the discovery of tumor necrosis factor-alpha as a therapeutic target for Rheumatoid Arthritis {1}.
F1000 Medicine would like to congratulate Professor Marc Feldmann and Sir Ravinder Maini on this fantastic achievement and we wish them all the success for the future.
]]>If you are going to this meeting in Toronto, it would be great to see you there. Please come and visit us at booth #837 to meet members of the team and to pick up your copy of our special-edition guide to Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care.
]]>Medscape, who offer the web's largest collection of free, full-text, peer-reviewed clinical medicine articles, will compliment their collection with evaluations of key articles from Faculty of 1000 Medicine.
While our 2400-strong Faculty selects and evaluates only those articles they think add value to their field, Medscape's editors will cherry-pick those articles they feel have clinically important results.
We hope that our relationship with Medscape will help us to get the invaluable insights of our trusted experts out to a broader audience in the medical community.
]]>Informetrics (a.k.a. infometrics) is the broad term comprising all '-metrics' studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (e.g. bibliographies, libraries), scientometrics (e.g. science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks, such as citation or collaboration networks), etc. {1}.
An interesting paper within this field, by Judit Bar-Ilan {2}, highlights some of the key literature covering the main issues and difficulties that have been facing informetrics since the beginning of the 21st century. In his review, Bar-Ilan covers developments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the h-index, citation analyses, debate over the impact factor and other multiple indicators and measures currently used to give a bigger picture of scientific output and quality across the different mediums.
It's great to see these areas being explored in more detail, as these different measures of scientific output provide a more objective means of analysing the ever-increasing amount of medical literature.
References:
1. Egghe, Information Processing & Management 2005, 41:1311-1316. Expansion of the field of informetrics: origins and consequences.
2. Bar-Ilan, Journal of Informetrics 2008, 2:1-52. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century – A review.
]]>
A recent news article by Drs Philippa Brice and Sowmiya Moorthie {1} highlights the unnecessary gap between developing new technologies and using them in clinical practice. They say that "translation of emerging technologies into health service practice requires key steps of evaluation, assessment, appraisal and implementation following on from 'bench to bedside' research" and their main concern now is "to bridge the current gap between assessment/evaluation and clinical implementation, a gap which creates unnecessary delay at translating potentially valuable new technologies into clinical practice and better health."
It is clear that much effort and focus is currently being made on how to bridge these gaps and ensure any new discoveries/technologies find their way into the clinic as soon as possible. Ultimately, we are all constantly working to improve healthcare practices and ensure patients are receiving the most appropriate and effective treatments.
{1} Brice and Moorthie, Improving Health Technology Assessments, 23 April 2008, http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/4072/ Accessed 24/04/2008
]]>
An excellent example is this evaluation by Bradley Kropp of the Urology Faculty:
Changes Clinical Practice: "Before an urologist operates on a kidney for decreased function, they need to take time out of their busy clinical practice to confirm their results with the nuclear radiologist. On occasion, redrawing the figures can have a dramatic effect on the numbers and potentially save a child from an unnecessary operation, so this double-check should be undertaken with every patient."Kropp says "It is important to remember that just because a test with a long fancy name … can generate a 'hard' number from a computer, it does not mean that this number is fact. Medical computers and other scientific software are exposed to the same limitation that every medical decision is subject to and that is the 'human element'… It is hard to program in the sense of sight, touch, taste, and smell and these are all important senses that can contribute to making a great medical decision."
He sums up by saying "As a clinical scientist, I have the advantage of performing science in the laboratory and practicing the 'art' of medicine in the clinical setting. A true artist does not paint by the numbers; therefore, a true urologic surgeon should also not operate by numbers."
You can search for articles that change practice by ticking the 'articles that Change Clinical Practice' box in Advanced Search. ]]>
