MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Medical education research and the ethics of different publication models
Education in Medicine Journal, 2014
Journal business models are basically classified based on the source of income to cover publication costs and in general there are two main journal business models which are the toll-access and open-access. These leading to a question that still remains around the ethics of publishing academic work across the different journal business models in terms of (a) editorial decision-making and (b) the dissemination of research that has not been appropriately peer-reviewed for quality and rigor. This paper discussed about these two areas based on the literature and the authors' observations.
The objective of this paper is to address one of the primary reasons that manuscripts are rejected for publication in the Journal of the International Association of Medical Science Educators (JIAMSE), poor manuscript writing. One of the primary goals of the International Association of Medical Science Educators (IAMSE) annual meeting is to improve the way we teach medical science students. The information that IAMSE members share in their poster presentations represents cutting-edge medical education research. The impact of these presentations is limited if the results are not disseminated beyond the annual IAMSE meeting to a larger audience. It remains a goal of the JIAMSE Editorial Board to encourage IAMSE members to share their medical education research with the community of medical educators by publishing the results of their work in JIAMSE. The journal is the peer-reviewed, biannual (June and December) electronic journal of IAMSE that is published in three languages (i.e., En...
Publishing ethics in medical education: guidance for authors and reviewers in a changing world
MedEdPublish, 2020
Medical education publishing is growing rapidly, with both increasing demand for publication space and increasing space availability. The increasing speed of publication, variable degrees of manuscript checking and increasing accessibility pose some challenges to compliance with ethical guidelines for academic publication. In this paper we review the literature and the websites of journals that publish medical education content and present a contemporary view on issues that should be considered by authors, reviewers, editors and readers of medical education publications. Based on this analysis, we present guidance on how to meet desired ethical standards when writing particular categories of manuscripts. Relying on self-judgement of the ethical status by authors may no longer be acceptable. The need to meet ethical guidelines in publishing must be balanced with the desire for freedom of speech and avoidance of editorial bias. Our intention is to provoke discussion and learning within the medical education community of practice.
Publication bias in the medical literature: A review by a Canadian research ethics board
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 2007
We reviewed the publication record of all protocols submitted to the Capital District Health Authority Research Ethics Board (REB) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the period 1995-1996. Because of a heightened awareness of the issue, we hypothesized that there would be less publication bias (a failure to report negative results) and a higher publication rate from completed studies, than previously reported.
BMJ open, 2014
Research in medical education has increased in volume over the past decades but concerns have been raised regarding the quality of trials conducted within this field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving educational interventions that are reported in biomedical journals have been criticised for their insufficient conceptual, theoretical framework. RCTs published in journals dedicated to medical education, on the other hand, have been questioned regarding their methodological rigour. The aim of this study is therefore to assess the quality of RCTs of educational interventions reported in 2012 and 2013 in journals dedicated to medical education compared to biomedical journals with respect to objective quality criteria. RCTs published between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 in English are included. The search strategy is developed with the help of experienced librarians to search online databases for key terms. All of the identified RCTs are screened based on their titles ...
BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013
To determine the proportion of medical journals requiring trial registration and to understand their reasons for adopting (or not adopting) such policies and other measures designed to reduce publication bias. Quantitative study of journals' instructions to authors (in June 2012) and qualitative study of editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias (carried out in Autumn 2012). Random selection of 200 medical journals publishing clinical trials identified from the Cochrane CENTRAL database. Editors (n=13) and publishers (n=3) of journals with different policies on trial registration (and with recently changed policies) identified from the survey of their instructions to authors. Only 55/200 journals (28%) required trial registration according to their instructions and a further three (2%) encouraged it. The editors and publishers interviewed explained their journals' reluctance to require registration in terms of not wanting to lose out t...
Reducing Publication Bias Through Trial Registration
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2007
Publication bias is the systematic, preferential publication of studies with statistically significant positive results over indeterminate studies (frequently, researchers inappropriately term these "negative" studies), or studies that show a statistically significant negative outcome. Over time, this practice distorts the medical literature, potentially compromising the validity of systematic reviews. Publication bias primarily stems from investigators, but data suppression can occur by pharmaceutical companies, universities, and regulatory agencies. Registration at inception of all clinical trials in a centralized, searchable database can reduce publication bias by enabling researchers to identify all studies related to a particular intervention. Prior attempts to encourage voluntary trial registration have been largely unsuccessful. Hence, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recently adopted a policy of mandatory clinical trial registration before consideration of manuscripts for publication. Trial registration and the development of comprehensive, computerized databases will promote transparency in research and help reduce publication bias.
Publication bias in clinical research
1991
Committee between 1984 and 1987, were studied for evidence of publication bias. As of May, 1990, 285 of the studies had been analysed by the investigators, and 52% of these had been published. Studies with statistically significant results were more likely to be published than those finding no difference between the study groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·32; 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1·25-4·28). Studies with significant results were also more likely to lead to a greater number of publications and presentations and to be published in journals with a high citation impact factor. An increased likelihood of publication was also associated with a high rating by the investigator of the importance of the study results, and with increasing sample size. The tendency towards publication bias was greater with observational and laboratory-based experimental studies (OR=3·79; 95% CI=1·47-9·76) than with randomised clinical trials (OR=0·84; 95% CI=0·34-2·09). We have confirmed the presence of publication bias in a cohort of clinical research studies. These findings suggest that conclusions based only on a review of published data should be interpreted cautiously, especially for observational studies. Improved strategies are needed to identify the results of unpublished as well as published studies.