34 research outputs found

    Linear correlation (A) and Bland-Altman (B) plots between scores of method reporting in <i>Trypanosoma</i> experiments.

    No full text
    <p>Evaluation based strictly on what was explicitly included in the published paper (Evaluator 1) and on interpretations and assumptions determined by an expert in the field (Evaluator 2).</p

    Diagram of articles about Trypanosomiasis[MeSH] published between 2000 and 2012.

    No full text
    <p>Number of articles published per journal (black bars) and the percentage of methods reporting (red bars). The figure shows that the quality of method reporting is not related with the number of papers published by any one of the journals.</p

    Scatter plots between the reported information in <i>Trypanosoma</i> experiments and year of publication.

    No full text
    <p>The figure shows that there is no correlation [<i>p</i> = 0.711] and that between 2000 and 2012 the quality of methods reporting has remain constant (arithmetic mean  = 65.5%).</p

    Scatter plots showing the relationship between the quality of methods reporting and the bibliometric indices.

    No full text
    <p>Journal impact factor in which the papers were published (A), h-index of the corresponding author (B), and number of citations that the articles have received in other publications (C). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient <i>r</i> is shown alongside the regression lines. The figure shows that there is no correlation between the quality of methods reporting and impact factor [<i>r</i> = −0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.868]. A similar result is shown with h-index, which was searched using the full name of the corresponding author [<i>r</i> = −0.12, <i>p</i> = 0.593; continuous line] and then filtered by the topic Trypanosom* [<i>r</i> = −0.21, <i>p</i> = 0.345; broken line]. There is a weak but significant correlation between the quality of methods reporting and the number of citations recorded by Google Scholar [<i>r</i> = −0.42, <i>p</i> = 0.044; broken line], but not by Web of Science [<i>r</i> = −0.35, <i>p</i> = 0.105; continuous line]. In order to find out if this association is due to a causal effect of the time of publication, a correlation between the number of citations and the time of publication was done (D), and also a weak but significant correlation was shown with the records of Web of Science [<i>r</i> = 0.42, <i>p</i> = 0.046; continuous line], but not with Google Scholar [<i>r</i> = 0.40, <i>p</i> = 0.057; broken line].</p
    corecore