The Competition for Attention and the Evolution of Science

Whenever the amount of information produced exceeds the amount of attention available to consume it, a competition for attention is born. The competition is increasingly fierce in science where the exponential growth of information has forced its producers, consumers and gatekeepers to become increasingly selective in what they attend to and what they ignore. Paradoxically, as the criteria of selection among authors, editors and readers of scientific journal articles co-evolve, they show signs of becoming increasingly unscientific. The present article suggests how the paradox can be addressed with computer simulation, and what its implications for the future of science might be.Attention, Competition, Evolution, Information, Production, Consumption

Confronting the Ghost: Legal Strategies to Oust Medical Ghostwriters

Articles published in medical journals contribute significantly to public health by disseminating medical information to physicians, thereby influencing prescribing practices. However, the information guiding treatment decisions becomes distorted by selective publishing and medical ghostwriting, which negatively affects overall patient care. Although there is general consensus in the medical community that these practices of publication bias represent a moral failing, the issue is rarely framed as a wrong that necessitates legal consequences. This Note takes the stance that medical ghostwriting constitutes an act prohibited under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and argues that physicians fraudulently named as authors should be held civilly liable under RICO. This Note explores civil RICO, its origin, its legislative and judicial history, and the evolution of RICO to areas beyond traditional organized crime. By applying the elements of civil RICO to medical ghostwriting, this Note argues that physicians named as authors who knowingly fail to fulfill journal authorship criteria should be held accountable for their role in disseminating misleading medical information. This Note argues that, at the very least, current regulations governing the medical publication framework should be better enforced and revised to mandate authorship disclosure

The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice

Written on behalf of the European Academy of Nursing Science REFLECTION review group: José Amendoeira, Polytechnic Institute of Santarem, Santarem, Portugal; (…) p.9European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

How good is the orthopaedic literature?

Randomized trials constitute approximately 3% of the orthopaedic literature Concerns regarding quality of the orthopaedic literature stem from a widespread notion that the overall quality of the surgical literature is in need of improvement. Limitations in surgical research arises primarily from two pervasive issues: 1) A reliance on low levels of evidence to advance surgical knowledge, and 2) Poor reporting quality among the high level surgical evidence that is available. The scarcity of randomized trials may be largely attributable to several unique challenges which make them difficult to conduct. We present characteristics of the orthopaedic literature and address the challenges of conducting randomized trials in surgery

Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: A study of ecology journals

To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage or mandate data sharing within and across disciplines, with varying degrees of success. Academic journals in ecology and evolution have adopted several types of public data archiving policies requiring authors to make data underlying scholarly manuscripts freely available. Yet anecdotes from the community and studies evaluating data availability suggest that these policies have not obtained the desired effects, both in terms of quantity and quality of available datasets. We conducted a qualitative, interview-based study with journal editorial staff and other stakeholders in the academic publishing process to examine how journals enforce data archiving policies. We specifically sought to establish who editors and other stakeholders perceive as responsible for ensuring data completeness and quality in the peer review process. Our analysis revealed little consensus with regard to how data archiving policies should be enforced and who should hold authors accountable for dataset submissions. Themes in interviewee responses included hopefulness that reviewers would take the initiative to review datasets and trust in authors to ensure the completeness and quality of their datasets. We highlight problematic aspects of these thematic responses and offer potential starting points for improvement of the public data archiving process.Comment: 35 pages, 1 figure, 1 tabl

DiSCmap : digitisation of special collections mapping, assessment, prioritisation. Final project report

Traditionally, digitisation has been led by supply rather than demand. While end users are seen as a priority they are not directly consulted about which collections they would like to have made available digitally or why. This can be seen in a wide range of policy documents throughout the cultural heritage sector, where users are positioned as central but where their preferences are assumed rather than solicited. Post-digitisation consultation with end users isequally rare. How are we to know that digitisation is serving the needs of the Higher Education community and is sustainable in the long-term? The 'Digitisation in Special Collections: mapping, assessment and prioritisation' (DiSCmap) project, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Research Information Network (RIN), aimed to:- Identify priority collections for potential digitisation housed within UK Higher Education's libraries, archives and museums as well as faculties and departments.- Assess users' needs and demand for Special Collections to be digitised across all disciplines.- Produce a synthesis of available knowledge about users' needs with regard to usability and format of digitised resources.- Provide recommendations for a strategic approach to digitisation within the wider context and activity of leading players both in the public and commercial sector.The project was carried out jointly by the Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR) and the Centre for Research in Library and Information Management (CERLIM) and has taken a collaborative approach to the creation of a user-driven digitisation prioritisation framework, encouraging participation and collective engagement between communities.Between September 2008 and March 2009 the DiSCmap project team asked over 1,000 users, including intermediaries (vocational users who take care of collections) and end users (university teachers, researchers and students) a variety of questions about which physical and digital Special Collections they make use of and what criteria they feel must be considered when selecting materials for digitisation. This was achieved through workshops, interviews and two online questionnaires. Although the data gathered from these activities has the limitation of reflecting only a partial view on priorities for digitisation - the view expressed by those institutions who volunteered to take part in the study - DiSCmap was able to develop:- a 'long list' of 945 collections nominated for digitisation both by intermediaries andend-users from 70 HE institutions (see p. 21);- a framework of user-driven prioritisation criteria which could be used to inform current and future digitisation priorities; (see p. 45)- a set of 'short lists' of collections which exemplify the application of user-driven criteria from the prioritisation framework to the long list (see Appendix X):o Collections nominated more than once by various groups of users.o Collections related to a specific policy framework, eg HEFCE's strategically important and vulnerable subjects for Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics.o Collections on specific thematic clusters.o Collections with highest number of reasons for digitisation