It should never be a rushed afterthought. An awful lot is riding on the quality of scientific abstracts. Most readers will rely on that summary, delving in no further. And a conferenceCategory Archives: Research Reporting
Building a Great Scientific Abstract: A Quick Checklist
It should never be a rushed afterthought. An awful lot is riding on the quality of scientific abstracts. Most readers will rely on that summary, delving in no further. And a conferenceAn Author Rights Perspective on Scientific Editors
By Hilda Bastian What should scientific editors be able to do well? We would all be able to agree easily on some basics. Last year, a group led by David Moher and colleaguesThe Case of the Missing Neuro Drug Trials
0000-0002-8715-2896 The case of the missing neurological drug trials remains shrouded in mystery. Nearly 48,000 people took part in these trials for new drugs for multiple sclerosis, stroke, Alzheimer disease, migraine, epilepsy, insomnia, and ParkinsonPosted by in Bias, biotech, clinical trials, Evidence, featured, Health, open science, RedditScience, Research Reporting
Science and the Rise of the Co-Authors
Leonhart Fuchs credited his illustrator collaborators in De Historia Stirpium, 1542 Physicists set a new record this year for number of co-authors: a 9-page report needed an extra 24 pages to list its 5,154 authors.Why Aren’t We All Machine-Friendly Researchers?
I blame the writing and research impact advice we get. At least in part. It doesn’t prepare us as well for our relationship with machines as it could. When we’re told to think of “the
The post Why Aren’t We All Machine-Friendly Researchers? appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Post-SPRINT Trial Headaches
On 11 September, some 9,300 participants in the SPRINT trial were sent a letter from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The letter told them the part of the trial where they needed to meet a set blood pressure target is … Continue reading
The post Post-SPRINT Trial Headaches appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Posted by in & Prevention, Evidence, gender, Health, hypertension, Research conduct, Research Reporting, Scientific controversy
5 Key Things to Know About Data on Adverse Effects
The potential harms of interventions are tricky to get a handle on. Our feelings about them are, too. It wouldn’t be easy – even if we didn’t have to deal with people trying to beat up, or minimize, the … Continue reading
The post 5 Key Things to Know About Data on Adverse Effects appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Posted by in Evidence, Listicles, Research Reporting, science communication, statistics, uncertainty
Another 5 Things to Know About Meta-Analysis
Last year I wrote a post of “5 Key Things to Know About Meta-Analysis”. It was a great way to focus – but it was hard keeping to only 5. With meta-analyses booming, including many that are poorly done or misinterpreted, … Continue reading
The post Another 5 Things to Know About Meta-Analysis appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Posted by in Bias, Evidence, meta analysis, Research Reporting, science communication, statistics
Rifts and Bright Spots in Evidence-Based Medicine
It all starts and ends with the patient. That was a strong message from the first day of Evidence Live. Trisha Greenhalgh walked that walk on day 2. She showed the limits of evidence-based medicine (EBM) with the story of one patient’s … Continue reading
The post Rifts and Bright Spots in Evidence-Based Medicine appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Study Report, Study Reality, and the Gap Between
We take mental shortcuts about research reports. “I read a study,” we say. We don’t only talk about them as though they are the study – we tend to think of them that way, too. And that’s risky. Even the … Continue reading
The post Study Report, Study Reality, and the Gap Between appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.
Posted by in journals, open science, Research conduct, Research Reporting, science communication