Dear Readers and Authors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jezela-Stanek A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330359 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS publish full-length articles on their Web sites and abridged versions in their print journals. We surveyed a stratified random sample of BMJ readers and authors to elicit their preferred format for the abridged print version. Each participant received a research paper abridged in 3 different formats: conventional abridged version, journalistic version and enhanced-abstract version. Overall, 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%-48%) of the respondents said they liked the conventional version most, 31% (95% CI 28%-34%) preferred the journalistic version and 25% (95% CI 22%-27%) preferred the enhanced-abstract version. Twenty-eight percent (95% CI 25%-32%) indicated that use of the journalistic format for abridged articles would very likely stop them from submitting papers to BMJ, and 13% (95% CI 11%-16%) said the use of the enhanced-abstract version would stop them from submitting to BMJ. Publishers of general medical journals who publish shortened articles should consider that authors and readers prefer a more conventional style of abridged papers.
| S-EPMC543983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers. RESULTS:We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36%?and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere. CONCLUSIONS:Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02961036.
| S-EPMC6157527 | biostudies-other
Project description:Title: Gene Expression in Ara-C Resistance in AML A microarray study of altered gene expression in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines Keywords: cell type comparison Keywords: Expression profiling by array
2005-09-01 | GSE2788 | GEO
Project description:Two questions regarding the scientific literature have become grist for public discussion: 1) what place should P values have in reporting the results of studies? 2) How should the perceived difficulty in replicating the results reported in published studies be addressed? We consider these questions to be 2 sides of the same coin; failing to address them can lead to an incomplete or incorrect message being sent to the reader. If P values (which are derived from the estimate of the effect size and a measure of the precision of the estimate of the effect) are used improperly, for example reporting only significant findings, or reporting P values without account for multiple comparisons, or failing to indicate the number of tests performed, the scientific record can be biased. Moreover, if there is a lack of transparency in the conduct of a study and reporting of study results, it will not be possible to repeat a study in a manner that allows inferences from the original study to be reproduced or to design and conduct a different experiment whose aim is to confirm the original study's findings. The goal of this article is to discuss how P values can be used in a manner that is consistent with the scientific method, and to increase transparency and reproducibility in the conduct and analysis of nutrition research.
| S-EPMC8488872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Modulation of gene expression through epigenetic signaling has recently emerged as a novel approach in treating human disease. Specifically, chromatin reader proteins, which mediate protein-protein interactions via binding to modified lysine residues, are gaining traction as potential therapeutic targets. Herein, we review recent efforts to understand and modulate the activity of chromatin reader proteins with small-molecule ligands.
| S-EPMC4310568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Notes for authors.
| S-EPMC3274415 | biostudies-literature