RSS Feeds
Highlighting the challenges of applying an ever-growing literature base to practice.
Categories
- All
- Impact factor versus...
- Bench to Bedside
- Information Overload
- Faculty News
- Editorial News
- General
Archives
| « August 2008 | ||||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Today | ||||||
Featured expert
Gert Dohle
Dept of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
© Medicine Reports Ltd unless otherwise stated Terms and conditions
Legal info
Privacy policy
Contact us
Blog
Reviewing Peer Review
A recent editorial in Science discusses the value of peer review, along with the increasing stresses on it, due to the growth of scientific publishing.
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
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
The misuse of citation statistics
"While it is incorrect to say that the impact factor gives no information about individual papers in a journal, the information is surprisingly vague and can be dramatically misleading" says a recent report published by the Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research {1}.
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
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
F1000 Medicine is now free to explore!
Faculty of 1000 Medicine is now freely available for clinicians, medics, scientists and journalists to browse and search! Also free is our sister service, Faculty of 1000 Biology.
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Worshiping False Idols: The Impact Factor Dilemma
"...although the journal impact factor was born innocently enough ... Garfield's impact factor is now being used by others in ways that threaten to destroy scientific inquiry as we know it" says Roger Brumback in a recent article published in the Journal of Child Neurology {1}.
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].
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Thanks for visiting us at the ATS
This month saw F1000 Medicine exhibit for the first time at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Conference, held in Toronto from 16th-21st May. It was a great success and we received lots of interest and positive feedback about the service.
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!
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Faculty Members awarded prestigious Dr. Paul Janssen award for biomedical research
Two of F1000 Medicine´s Rheumatology Faculty Members, Professor Marc Feldmann and Sir Ravinder Maini, of the Kennedy Rheumatology Institute at Imperial College London, have been awarded the 2008 Dr Paul Janssen award!
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Visit us at the American Thoracic Society Conference
Faculty of 1000 Medicine & Biology are exhibiting at this year's American Thoracic Society Conference (May 18-21).
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Faculty of 1000 Medicine partnership with Medscape
We are delighted to announce that Medscape will be regularly publishing a selection of expert opinions from Faculty of 1000 Medicine's world-leading clinicians and researchers.
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
The wonderful world of informetrics
Informetrics is an area of information science which is thriving. It provides us with alternative qualitative and quantitative means of measuring scientific output.
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Translational research - working hard to bridge the knowledge translation gap
The gap that exists between what is discovered in the lab and what is implemented in the clinic is expanding. So much so that, the dedicated translational research field is reaching it's peak and is starting to be described as a multistep process that eventually finishes with medical guidelines and clinical practice changes. This field is pivotal to ensuring that the gap between discovery and implementation is reduced.
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
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
600 evaluations that change clinical practice
Good news for clinicians! There are now more than 600 evaluations of articles that change clinical practice on our website. These articles feature explicit recommendations to indicate how an article can immediately affect clinical practice.
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.
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
We've improved our email alerts
If you're already signed up to receive 'My F1000M Alerts' then you may have noticed that we've now included some additional features.
To give you a taste of what the article is about, the improved 'My F1000M Alert' now displays the first line of the article's evaluation [1] or changes clinical practice recommendation [2]. It also lists which sub-specialties the article falls under.
'My F1000M Alerts' can also be tailored to suit your needs. You can specify your favourite specialties so that you are only alerted to articles that matter to you [3], change how often you receive your alerts [4], as well as the number of articles in each alert. You can also access different areas of the website from within the alert.
If you haven't set up an email alert already, why not take a few minutes to do so now?
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Debate around key articles: the first replies to dissents and author responses
March has been an exciting time for us here at F1000 Medicine. We already allow Faculty Member to submit dissents of evaluations, as well as encouraging authors to respond to the evaluations of their articles. This month, we have published our first Faculty replies to both a dissent and an author response.
Allowing Faculty Members to reply to dissents and author responses is yet another great way of enlivening discussion and encouraging debate around key articles within the medical community.
Read our first reply to an author response -- Todd Bull of the Respiratory Disorders Faculty responds to BG Stevinson et al.:
Read our first reply to a dissent -- Michael Strupp responds to a dissent made by Stefan Hegemann, both of the Neurological Disorders Faculty:
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Rheumatoid arthritis often misdiagnosed
In February, Annelies Boonen recommended an article that brings into question the ability of general practitioners to correctly diagnose rheumatoid arthritis {1}. The article shows that a large proportion of patients in this study were initially misdiagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and that only 27% of patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Of the patients referred, only 17% of the patients received confirmation by a rheumatologist of a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.
Boonen is concerned as "the results appear worrying with regard to diagnostic ability and referral practice in first-line health care." Boonen believes that "rheumatologists should actively contribute to improve the diagnostic ability of general practitioners for rheumatological conditions and develop recommendations or guidelines for referral."
The attention that this article has received from other websites clearly demonstrates its importance to medicine. Ultimately, the diagnostic techniques of general practitioners and the medical resources available to them constantly need to be updated to ensure patients are always receiving the highest quality of medical care.
1. Feldman et al., Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:1419-1425 [PMID:18050182]
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Predicting the impact of a clinical article
A recent article published in the BMJ {1} highlights the importance of being able to predict the relevance and impact of a clinical or evidence-based medicine article shortly after its publication. The study asserts that a definitive method is needed to quickly determine an article's importance other than citation rates, as these are not available until months after publication.
The paper continues by stating that knowing the clinical impact of an article early on will allow it to be highlighted and distributed appropriately to the correct readership. This in turn could improve patient care through effective knowledge translation and continuing medical education, as well as allowing research within that area to advance. The article also proposes an interesting method to predict what the citation rate (and thus popularity) of a paper will be two years down the line.
Here at F1000 Medicine, we are avid believers in the necessity of identifying high impact articles as soon as possible. That's why we have over 2,400 experts worldwide who regularly send us evaluations of new (as well as older) articles that they deem add knowledge to an area of medicine. Thus, we are creating an invaluable online database for clinicians, physicians, researchers, nurses and medical students.
References:
1. Lokker et al. Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. BMJ February 2008, Epub ahead of print [PMID:18292132].
Save to del.icio.us | Email this
Main | Next page »