Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders

Collins, Ellen

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004171

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states that studies with negative results should not be excluded in order to support a debate in science ( 33 ). Publication bias is recognized by research funders that consider publishing negative results should be a priority ( 34 ).…”

Section: Position Of Major Organizations Funders and Journal Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike.

show abstract

Section: Position Of Major Organizations Funders and Journal Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, Hostiuc et al [7] divided TR into a succession of six operating phases, starting with fundamental research and ending with the implementation of social policies, as a result of the whole translation process. Indeed, “translation” usually refers to how biomedical science should produce a return of investment by bridging the gap between the amount of knowledge produced and the expected benefit, the “bench-to-bedside” approach [30, 31]. In CARPEM, particular attention in the translation movement was paid to the bedside-to bench approach because TR rests on translational researchers who are also physicians at the interface between the clinic and research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partnering with patients in translational oncology research: ethical approach

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe research program CARPEM (cancer research and personalized medicine) brings together the expertise of researchers and hospital-based oncologists to develop translational research in the context of personalized or “precision” medicine for cancer. There is recognition that patient involvement can help to take into account their needs and priorities in the development of this emerging practice but there is currently no consensus about how this can be achieved. In this study, we developed an empirical ethical research action aiming to improve patient representatives’ involvement in the development of the translational research program together with health professionals. The aim is to promote common understanding and sharing of knowledge between all parties and to establish a long-term partnership integrating patient’s expectations.MethodsTwo distinct committees were settled in CARPEM: an “Expert Committee”, gathering healthcare and research professionals, and a “Patient Committee”, gathering patients and patient representatives. A multidisciplinary team trained in medical ethics research ensured communication between the two committees as well as analysis of discussions, minutes and outputs from all stakeholders.ResultsThe results highlight the efficiency of the transfer of knowledge between interested parties. Patient representatives and professionals were able to identify new ethical challenges and co-elaborate new procedures to gather information and consent forms for adapting to practices and recommendations developed during the process. Moreover, included patient representatives became full partners and participated in the transfer of knowledge to the public via conferences and publications.ConclusionsEmpirical ethical research based on a patient-centered approach could help in establishing a fair model for coordination and support actions during cancer research, striking a balance between the regulatory framework, researcher needs and patient expectations. Our approach addresses the concept of translational ethics as a way to handle the main remaining gap between combining care and research activities in the medical pathway and the existing framework.

show abstract

“…Scientists in preclinical and translational research have invested time and research funds to design and conduct studies yielding valuable data that they have either chosen not to publish, have not been able to publish, or have only partially published [ 4–6 ]. Funding agencies and the public do not learn anything from research that is not shared; hence the resources used to complete the work are wasted [ 7 ]. Other laboratories, who have no way of knowing that the research was ever conducted, may invest additional time and funding to repeat the same types of studies.…”

Section: The Ever-expanding File Drawer: Where Data Go To Diementioning

confidence: 99%

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than non-significant or null findings, leaving scientists and healthcare personnel to make decisions based on distorted scientific evidence. Continuously expanding ´file drawers’ of unpublished data from well-designed experiments waste resources creates problems for researchers, the scientific community and the public. There is limited awareness of the negative impact that publication bias and selective reporting have on the scientific literature. Alternative publication formats have recently been introduced that make it easier to publish research that is difficult to publish in traditional peer reviewed journals. These include micropublications, data repositories, data journals, preprints, publishing platforms, and journals focusing on null or neutral results. While these alternative formats have the potential to reduce publication bias, many scientists are unaware that these formats exist and don’t know how to use them. Our open source file drawer data liberation effort (fiddle) tool (RRID:SCR_017327 available at: http://s-quest.bihealth.org/fiddle/) is a match-making Shiny app designed to help biomedical researchers to identify the most appropriate publication format for their data. Users can search for a publication format that meets their needs, compare and contrast different publication formats, and find links to publishing platforms. This tool will assist scientists in getting otherwise inaccessible, hidden data out of the file drawer into the scientific community and literature. We briefly highlight essential details that should be included to ensure reporting quality, which will allow others to use and benefit from research published in these new formats.

show abstract

Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results

Partnering with patients in translational oncology research: ethical approach

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About