Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 353
Filter
1.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 141(5): 421-422, 2023 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20233502
2.
J Bone Joint Surg Am ; 102(9): 733, 2020 05 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326547
3.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 28(3): 144-147, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2325777
4.
Am J Epidemiol ; 192(7): 1043-1046, 2023 Jul 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2323286

ABSTRACT

Peer-reviewed journals provide an invaluable but inadequate vehicle for scientific communication. Preprints are now an essential complement to peer-reviewed publications. Eschewing preprints will slow scientific progress and reduce the public health impact of epidemiologic research. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted long-standing limitations of the peer-review process. Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, served as crucial venues to rapidly disseminate research and provide detailed backup to sound-bite science that is often communicated through the popular press or social media. The major criticisms of preprints arise from an unjustified optimism about peer review. Peer review provides highly imperfect sorting and curation of research and only modest improvements in research conduct or presentation for most individual papers. The advantages of peer review come at the expense of months to years of delay in sharing research methods or results. For time-sensitive evidence, these delays can lead to important missteps and ill-advised policies. Even with research that is not intrinsically urgent, preprints expedite debate, expand engagement, and accelerate progress. The risk that poor-quality papers will have undue influence because they are posted on a preprint server is low. If epidemiology aims to deliver evidence relevant for public health, we need to embrace strategic uses of preprint servers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Publishing , Communication , Pandemics
6.
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging ; 13(4): e010822, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2315021
8.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 156: 113-118, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2316011

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges. METHODS: Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors. RESULTS: We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. CONCLUSION: We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.


Subject(s)
Publishing , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Humans
9.
Nat Aging ; 2(7): 563, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2312553
10.
BMJ ; 381: 911, 2023 04 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2296810
12.
Med J Aust ; 218(1): 22-24, 2023 01 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2283386

Subject(s)
Publishing , Humans
13.
Med J Aust ; 218(2): 70, 2023 02 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251245

Subject(s)
Publishing , Humans , Australia
14.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 23(4): 381, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2247646
15.
Biometrics ; 79(1): 5-8, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2247471
16.
BMJ ; 381: 788, 2023 04 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255283
17.
BMJ ; 380: 689, 2023 03 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255282
18.
20.
PLoS One ; 18(2): e0281058, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2241760

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking. METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs. RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access. CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Publishing , Research Personnel , Peer Review
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL