Surrogate science: The idol of a universal method for scientific inference

The application of statistics to science is not a neutral act. Statistical tools have shaped and were also shaped by its objects. In the social sciences, statistical methods fundamentally changed research practice, making statistical inference its centerpiece. At the same time, textbook writers in the social sciences have transformed rivaling statistical systems into an apparently monolithic method that could be used mechanically. The idol of a universal method for scientific inference has been worshipped since the "inference revolution" of the 1950s. Because no such method has ever been found, surrogates have been created, most notably the quest for significant p values. This form of surrogate science fosters delusions and borderline cheating and has done much harm, creating, for one, a flood of irreproducible results. Proponents of the "Bayesian revolution" should be wary of chasing yet another chimera: an apparently universal inference procedure. A better path would be to promote both an understanding of the various devices in the "statistical toolbox" and informed judgment to select among these.

Evaluación de un artículo científico

El proceso de revisión y evaluación de manuscritos, conocido como arbitraje científico o peer review, supone actualmente un paso que se considera necesario para la divulgación de los avances científicos de una determinada disciplina. Cuando una revista recibe un artículo, sus editores recurren a revisores expertos que, después de la lectura detenida del manuscrito, evalúan la idoneidad de su publicación, en este trabajo se describe el proceso editorial de un artículo y se muestran los ítems por los cuales se evalúan los artículos.

Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results

Objectives: Publication bias may affect the validity of evidence based medical decisions. The aim of this study is to assess whether research outcomes affect the dissemination of clinical trial findings, in terms of rate, time to publication, and impact factor of journal publications. Methods and Findings: All drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee between 1997 and 2004 were prospectively followed to analyze their fate and publication. Published articles were identified by searching Pubmed and other electronic databases. Clinical study final reports submitted to the ethics committee, final reports synopses available online and meeting abstracts were also considered as sources of study results. Study outcomes were classified as positive (when statistical significance favoring experimental drug was achieved), negative (when no statistical significance was achieved or it favored control drug) and descriptive (for non-controlled studies). Time to publication was defined as time from study closure to publication. A survival analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to analyze time to publication. Journal impact factors of identified publications were recorded. Publication rate was 48·4% (380/785). Study results were identified for 68·9% of all completed clinical trials (541/785). Publication rate was 84·9% (180/212) for studies with results classified as positive and 68·9% (128/186) for studies with results classified as negative (p<0·001). Median time to publication was 2·09 years (IC95 1·61-2·56) for studies with results classified as positive and 3·21 years (IC95 2·69-3·70) for studies with results classified as negative (hazard ratio 1·99 (IC95 1·55-2·55). No differences were found in publication impact factor between positive (median 6·308, interquartile range: 3·141-28·409) and negative result studies (median 8·266, interquartile range: 4·135-17·157). Conclusions: Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results. However, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.

Research networks and scientific production in Economics: the recent Spanish experience

This paper studies Spanish scientific production in Economics from 1994 to 2004. It focuses on aspects that have received little attention in other bibliometric studies, such as the impact of research and the role of scientific collaborations in the publications produced by Spanish universities. Our results show that national research networks have played a fundamental role in the increase in Spanish scientific production in this discipline.

Scientific evidence on the usefulness of intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection in the management of temporomandibular dysfunction

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is found in high concentrations in cartilage and synovial fluid, and is an important component of the extracellular matrixes- exerting joint lubrication and buffering actions thanks to its viscoelastic properties. The present study examines the scientific evidence found in the current literature on the usefulness of the intraarticular injection of HA in patients with temporomandibular dysfunction. A literature search was made up until May 2008 in the following databases: PubMed / MEDLINE. Of the articles found in the literature, the present review included 18 relevant studies on the application of HA in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The quality, level of evidence and strength of recommendation of the articles was evaluated based on the"Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy" criteria. It is concluded that type A level of recommendation exists in favor of the intraarticular injection of HA in dysfunction of the TMJ. However, further studies are needed to establish the true therapeutic effects and to identify the best dosing regimen.

Behind and beyond of the cyborgs and robots ideas and realities: some techno-scientific and philosophical hints

We are progressively immersed in technology to such extend that in our everyday life we are and we do what technology allows us to be and to do. In this process, cyborgs and robots constitute elements that we analyze from a number of techno scientific and philosophical approaches. Additionally, we propose that a new concept: GEH (Genetic Engineered Human) as a new potential social imaginary element, which would be the human being improved by the broad-sense genetics engineer (that is, changing many genes by genetics engineer, modifications in the genome, cloning, and so on). If our aspirations as humans pass through technology and in particular for cyborgs, robots and GEH, the bidirectional links between these theoretical or real entities and our personal identities will be the more and more substantial in our society.

Abbatouy, Mohammed; Renn Hürgen and Weinig, Paul (Eds.). Intercultural Transmission of Scientific Knowledge in the Middle Ages: Graeco-Arabic-Latin. Science in Context

As the editors explain in the introduction, a workshop dedicated to 'Experience and Knowledge Structures in Arabic and Latin sciences' was held at the Max Plank Institue for the HIstory of Science...

Author Rights vs Self-Archiving in Spanish Scientific Journals

The paper analyzes publishers" copyright policies and self-archiving conditions of Spanish scientific journals. Data are extracted from the directory DULCINEA that contains information of 1318 Spanish journals, of which 775 (61%) allow some form of self-archiving to be about 60% of the post-print version and allowing them 87% of the deposit of the version of record. In 72% of journals the deposit can be performed immediately after publication and in 16% after article acceptance. 72% of the journals are freely available without charge to the user this figure raises up to 86% if free access after an embargo is considered. Only 18% of the journals use Creative Commons licenses. The adoption of different open access journals model in Spain is favorable, however there is still a high percentage of journals (39%) that do not provide any information about authors and publishers rights and that difficult or inhibits reuse of published articles.

Early childhood constraint therapy for sensory/motor impairment in cerebral palsy: a randomised clinical trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common physical disability in childhood. It is a disorder resulting from sensory and motor impairments due to perinatal brain injury, with lifetime consequences that range from poor adaptive and social function to communication and emotional disturbances. Infants with CP have a fundamental disadvantage in recovering motor function: they do not receive accurate sensory feedback from their movements, leading to developmental disregard. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is one of the few effective neurorehabilitative strategies shown to improve upper extremity motor function in adults and older children with CP, potentially overcoming developmental disregard. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a randomised controlled trial of children 12-24 months corrected age studying the effectiveness of CIMT combined with motor and sensory-motor interventions. The study population will comprise 72 children with CP and 144 typically developing children for a total of N=216 children. All children with CP, regardless of group allocation will continue with their standard of care occupational and physical therapy throughout the study. The research material collected will be in the form of data from high-density array event-related potential scan, standardised assessment scores and motion analysis scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02567630.

Tools and data services registry: a community effort to document bioinformatics resources.

Life sciences are yielding huge data sets that underpin scientific discoveries fundamental to improvement in human health, agriculture and the environment. In support of these discoveries, a plethora of databases and tools are deployed, in technically complex and diverse implementations, across a spectrum of scientific disciplines. The corpus of documentation of these resources is fragmented across the Web, with much redundancy, and has lacked a common standard of information. The outcome is that scientists must often struggle to find, understand, compare and use the best resources for the task at hand.Here we present a community-driven curation effort, supported by ELIXIR-the European infrastructure for biological information-that aspires to a comprehensive and consistent registry of information about bioinformatics resources. The sustainable upkeep of this Tools and Data Services Registry is assured by a curation effort driven by and tailored to local needs, and shared amongst a network of engaged partners.As of November 2015, the registry includes 1785 resources, with depositions from 126 individual registrations including 52 institutional providers and 74 individuals. With community support, the registry can become a standard for dissemination of information about bioinformatics resources: we welcome everyone to join us in this common endeavour. The registry is freely available at https://bio.tools.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.