| Homepage |
| Search |
This study is based on a survey carried out in 2007 by the Association of Research Libraries to gather data on the publishing services they were providing. The results showed that research libraries are rapidly developing publishing services (44% reported they were delivering publishing services). Libraries publish many kinds of works, even if the main focus is journals (88% of publishing libraries reported publishing journals). Peer reviewed works dominate library publishing programmes. Libraries are increasingly inclined to provide at least basic hosting services (open source software). Advice and consulting regarding a variety of publishing practices and decisions are perhaps even more popular services. Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 2008;5(5):e95. (doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095) Starting from the premise that the daily delivery of news stories about new treatments, tests, products, and procedures may have a profound, and perhaps harmful, impact on health care consumers, a new US website project, HealthNewsReview.org (http://HealthNewsReview.org/), modeled on similar efforts in Australia and Canada, has been created to evaluate and grade health news coverage, notifying journalists of their grades. This article reports on the project’s findings after its first 22 months and after evaluation of 500 health news stories. It hopes that the evaluation of health news that is proposed will lead news organizations and all who engage in the dissemination of health news and information to re-evaluate their practices to better serve a more informed health care consumer population. Wiley S. No to negative data. Why I believe findings that disprove a hypothesis are largely not worth publishing. The Scientist 2008;22(4):39. (www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54459/) Why are journals disinclined to publish negative data? The problem with negative results is that they are seen as not actually advancing science. As science is based on a set of ideas supported by observations, a negative result is considered as not supporting any specific idea. Certainly some of the positive data that have been published are wrong, and they eventually suffer the fate of all scientific errors and are abandoned. The solution to that bias is seen in treating published results more skeptically. © Copyright 2008 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|