المؤلفون: Stoneburner RL, Low-Beer D

المصدر: International journal of epidemiology [Int J Epidemiol] 2004 Jun; Vol. 33 (3), pp. 624. Date of Electronic Publication: 2004 Jun 10.

نوع المنشور: Journal Article

بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Oxford University Press Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 7802871 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0300-5771 (Print) Linking ISSN: 03005771 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Epidemiol Subsets: MEDLINE

مواضيع طبية MeSH: Retraction of Publication as Topic*

المؤلفون: Graham D. Cole, Matthew J. Shun-Shin, Darrel P. Francis, David Zargaran, Bharpoor Singh, Alexandra N. Nowbar, Michael Mielewczik, Saliha Mahmood, Faisal Al-Mayahi, Kevin G Buell

المساهمون: British Heart Foundation

المصدر: International Journal of Epidemiology

مصطلحات موضوعية: Adult, Male, Epidemiology, Statistics as Topic, IMPROVEMENT, Convenience sample, Scientific literature, GUIDELINES, EJECTION FRACTION, clinical governance, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Young Adult, patient safety, Humans, Medicine, retraction of publication, METAANALYSIS, Public, Environmental & Occupational Health, BETA-BLOCKADE, Clinical Trials as Topic, Science & Technology, STEM-CELL THERAPY, business.industry, 0104 Statistics, General Medicine, REVIEWERS, Spot the Discrepancy, Data Accuracy, Clinical trial, 1117 Public Health And Health Services, HEART-FAILURE, Female, DAMASCENE, business, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, NONCARDIAC SURGERY, Clinical psychology

الوصف: Background: Scientific literature can contain errors. Discrepancies, defined as two or more statements or results that cannot both be true, may be a signal of problems with a trial report. In this study, we report how many discrepancies are detected by a large panel of readers examining a trial report containing a large number of discrepancies. Methods: We approached a convenience sample of 343 journal readers in seven countries, and invited them in person to participate in a study. They were asked to examine the tables and figures of one published article for discrepancies. 260 participants agreed, ranging from medical students to professors. The discrepancies they identified were tabulated and counted. There were 39 different discrepancies identified. We evaluated the probability of discrepancy identification, and whether more time spent or greater participant experience as academic authors improved the ability to detect discrepancies. Results: Overall, 95.3% of discrepancies were missed. Most participants (62%) were unable to find any discrepancies. Only 11.5% noticed more than 10% of the discrepancies. More discrepancies were noted by participants who spent more time on the task (Spearman’s ρ = 0.22, P

URL الوصول: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::83175f597eb0c432e98d03fb647b0a05
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv114

المؤلفون: Richard Smith

المصدر: International Journal of Epidemiology. 35:1129-1130

مصطلحات موضوعية: Publishing, Curse, History, Impact factor, Abstracting and Indexing, Epidemiology, Scientific Misconduct, Citation index, General Medicine, Bibliometrics, nobody, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Law, Humans, Criticism, Periodicals as Topic, Citation, Scientific misconduct

الوصف: Fifteen years ago many editors and academics had never heard of impact factors. Now they are obsessed with them. When I was first editor of the BMJ in 1991 I would attend the editorial boards of our dozen specialist journals—Gut and Thorax, for example—and present data on the journals’ impact factors. Usually nobody had heard of impact factors. I explained what they were—and people yawned. Now editors break open bottles of champagne if their impact factor rises by a tenth of a decimal point or burst into tears if it falls. They build their editorial strategies around increasing their impact factors. Authors, meanwhile, can quote the impact factors of the major journals and use them when deciding where to submit their papers. What is this thing called the impact factor? Why does it have such power? And is it a blessing or a curse? The impact factor was first mentioned by its inventor, Eugene Garfield, in Science in 1955. 1 He proposed that a system should be devised for an original scientific paper that ‘would provide a complete listing . . .of all the original articles that had referred to the article in question’. The law had been doing something similar since 1873. Garfield saw many uses for the citation index, but his prime aim was to ‘eliminate the uncritical citation of fraudulent, incomplete, or obsolete data by making it possible for the conscientious scholar to be aware of criticism of earlier papers’. He began his article with a quote that ‘The uncritical citation of disputed data . . . is a serious matter . . .Buried in scholarly journals, critical notes are increasingly likely to be overlooked with the passage of time, while the studies to which they pertain, having been reported more widely, are apt to be rediscovered.’ I find it ironic to read these words half a century after they were written because I fear that the impact factor that was born in this article has done little to reduce the citation of fraudulent data and may well have encouraged such citations. Several studies have shown that retracted articles continue to be cited. 2,3 One recent study of 211 retracted articles published between 1996 and 2000 found that a third of their citations occurred after the articles were retracted. 3 Of the 137 citations only five were negative: the vast majority cited the work affirmatively. To add to our distress a recent article in Science has shown that many studies that are proved to be fraudulent are not even retracted. 4

URL الوصول: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::363bc74d452f5116618be2b96d1a1255
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl191

المؤلفون: Daniel Low-Beer, Rand L. Stoneburner

المصدر: International Journal of Epidemiology. 33:624-624

مصطلحات موضوعية: Sexual partner, Epidemiology, business.industry, Incidence (epidemiology), media_common.quotation_subject, Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), virus diseases, General Medicine, Abstinence, medicine.disease, Hiv risk, medicine.disease_cause, Virology, law.invention, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Sexual abstinence, Condom, Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), law, parasitic diseases, Medicine, business, Demography, media_common

الوصف: Background A better understanding of behavioural factors associated with the interruption of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) dynamics in Uganda are fundamental for guiding HIV prevention strategies. A comparative analysis of population level HIV surveillance and behavioural data in Uganda and countries with similar epidemic dynamics offers a framework to identify distinctive elements of the Ugandan success. Methods We analysed HIV prevalence among pregnant women attending antenatal surveillance sites between 1990‐1998 in Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, and Malawi, and AIDS behavioural data collected in Uganda (1989, 1995), Kenya (1998), Zambia, and Malawi (1996). Results In Uganda between 1991‐1998, HIV prevalence rates fell 54% overall, with 75% and 57% declines among 15‐19 and 20‐24 age groups in urban areas, respectively. HIV declines were associated with a 60% reduction in multiple sexual partners between 1989‐1995, as well as increased condom use and sexual abstinence. The lack of comparable HIV declines in comparison countries with similar rates of abstinence and condom use, but with multiple sexual partnership rates similar to Uganda in 1989, suggests that partner reduction is paramount in interrupting sexual HIV dynamics. Comparatively, Ugandans were more likely to acknowledge people with AIDS and communicate about HIV through personal networks. Modelling suggests an 80% reduction in incidence among youth early in the 1990s, suggesting a preceding behavioural process during the late 1980s, which reduced HIV risk. Conclusion The distinctive element explaining declines in HIV prevalence in Uganda is sexual partner reduction. The Ugandan response to AIDS involved a primary HIV intervention whose key outcome was risk avoidance through partner reduction. This focus for HIV prevention could prove more effective than other widely advocated strategies in sub-Saharan Africa.

URL الوصول: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::1f1c694c5d69eac96b4ae0e932602b43
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh141