Revista de saúde pública
-
Revista de saúde pública · Aug 2006
Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors.
Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. ⋯ Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.
-
Revista de saúde pública · Aug 2006
[Growth and trends in scientific production in epidemiology in Brazil].
To analyze the growth of epidemiological research in Brazil in comparison to the total number of indexed publications worldwide and from several Latin American and Caribbean countries. ⋯ Our results corroborate previous evidence of the intense growth of epidemiological research in Brazil in the last two decades. This growth was more intense than mean growth worldwide, and much greater than that found in other Latin American countries. Therefore, Brazilian scientific output in the epidemiology field is showing a growth pattern similar to that of other scientific areas in the country.
-
The paper discusses the difficulties in judging the quality of scientific manuscripts and describes some common pitfalls that should be avoided when preparing a paper for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is an imperfect system, with less than optimal reliability and uncertain validity. However, as it is likely that it will remain as the principal process of screening papers for publication, authors should avoid some common mistakes when preparing a report based on empirical findings of human research. ⋯ Another common problem in many manuscripts is their excessive length, which makes them more difficult to be evaluated or read by the intended readers, if published. The evaluation of papers after their publication with a view towards their inclusion in a systematic review is also discussed. The limitations of the impact factor as a criterion to judge the quality of a paper are reviewed.
-
Revista de saúde pública · Aug 2006
[Impact of the Internet on communication flow of scientific health information].
Communication flow of scientific information has been restructured with the development of new technologies and the Internet and their impact on social relations worldwide. The production of scientific knowledge has also been influenced by these cultural, social and economic changes and has contributed to new patterns of scientific communication. ⋯ While the traditional model is based on printed publications, the new one focuses on electronic publishing and open unlimited access to published literature. The challenges faced are in using all the potential of electronic media for improving traditional communication flow of scientific information and defining policies to support the new model of scientific communication to ensure quality, preservation and dissemination of information as a common good.