Issues in electronic research publishing: implications for occupational health care.

Electronic publishing (e-publishing) is a global effort to make new scientific findings freely available to the public at the earliest possible time in a centralized Internet repository. Several journals modeled after the PubMedCentral concept offer central and efficient access to biomedical literature while balancing open communication with publishing obligations. Supporters of e-publishing indicate that convenient access to the most current scientific literature in multimedia formats affords occupational and other health care providers tools to supplement practice, answer clinical questions, and network with other professionals. Non-supporters claim that e-publishing may compromise the peer review process, promote weak research and the use of non-scientifically endorsed information, and present technical difficulties to users. Accepting e-publishing requires considering all users and producers of scientific information as potential vehicles to conduct, communicate, disseminate, and retrieve scientific research. The transition will occur more smoothly if standards, including costs, for e-publishing are established and implemented.     

Sex and Gender Reporting in Rehabilitation Research: A Commentary

Although many funding agencies have mandated sex and gender considerations in grant proposals, the integration of these considerations may not be consistently integrated in the reporting phase. Increasingly more journals are however mandating requirements in the process of peer review and reporting. This commentary provides a rationale, context, and resources for authors in the rehabilitation field regarding sex and gender considerations in scientific reporting to ultimately aim to improve science and equity in our research.     

Invited commentary on "Level of evidence in four selected rehabilitation journals"

Grimby G. Invited commentary on “Level of evidence in four selected rehabilitation journals.”Level of evidence has been studied in 4 selected rehabilitation journals in the article by Kocak, Unver, and Karatosun. However, other journals within the rehabilitation field would also have been relevant to study to get a more comprehensive analysis. Examples of such journals are mentioned in this commentary. The limitations of the traditional impact factor are discussed, and the use of a 5-year impact factor is suggested. The categorization of journals used and the lack of definitions of the categories are criticized. The importance of publishing more randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in rehabilitation is supported.     

Online publishing: how, why and other related issues

The Internet allows the creation of a peer reviewed online journal, such as Images in Paediatric Cardiology, at a fraction of the cost of a conventional journal. Furthermore, an online journal can display a multitude of images and other multimedia material (such as audio and video files)--a feature not available in a conventional journal. The issues of creating such a journal are explored, along with the issues of online publishing, including copyright and peer review. Current proposals that may affect copyright and peer review in all journals are also outlined.     

Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation

Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.     

Should anonymous and pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged?

Post-publication peer review (PPPR) relies on signed or anonymous/pseudonymous comments, and is a fundamental process that complements the weakness of traditional peer review that were not discussed by Trotter (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.10.009). Yet, should anonymous or pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged if their identities cannot be confirmed? This discussion abridges some of the issues underlining the fundamentals of PPPR, supplementing the gaps not covered by Trotter, and why there are ethical complexities involved with citing anonymous or pseudonymous entities. Based on COPE and ICMJE ethical guidelines, the argument against citing or acknowledging anonymous or pseudonymous entities is strong, because doing so would likely infringe upon one or more of their stated ethical regulations. Currently, no clearly stated regulations exist pertaining to this issue, so this discussion provides a spring-board for policy makers and academics to initiate a debate, and ultimately establish a clear set of publishing ethics guidelines pertaining to the acknowledgement of anonymous or pseudonymous entities.     

Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review

Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics was conducted as found in PubMed, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.     

Year in review 2013: Critical Care – sepsis

This review presents key publications from the research field of sepsis published in Critical Care and other relevant journals during 2013. The results of these experimental studies and clinical trials are discussed in the context of current scientific and clinical background. The discussion highlights and summarises articles on four main topics: sepsis pathogenesis, diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, potential new therapies, and epidemiologic and outcome studies.     

Year in review 2013: <Emphasis Type="Italic">Critical Care</Emphasis> – sepsis

This review presents key publications from the research field of sepsis published in Critical Care and other relevant journals during 2013. The results of these experimental studies and clinical trials are discussed in the context of current scientific and clinical background. The discussion highlights and summarises articles on four main topics: sepsis pathogenesis, diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, potential new therapies, and epidemiologic and outcome studies.     

Theory development and a science of rehabilitation

Purpose.?This article considers the role of theory and theory building in science and specifically in rehabilitation. It is argued that rehabilitation has tended to value theory testing over theory building and some evidence is presented for this.

Method.?Some general questions concerning the role of theory in scientific progress are discussed including: What is a theory? What is the role of theory in science? What makes a good scientific theory? How does theoretical change occur in science? Where relevant these questions are discussed in terms of examples from clinical rehabilitation research.

Results.?Two important issues arising from the preceding discussion are then considered. First is the question of whether a general or unifying theory of rehabilitation is a desirable goal. The second concerns how we might begin to develop a coherent programme of theory building in rehabilitation.

Conclusion.?More time spent on rehabilitation theory building may enhance the fruits of empirical theory testing.