Law Journals, Biomedical Journals, and Restraint of Trade

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Curfman
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

scholarly journals A systematic review of genetic skeletal disorders reported in Chinese biomedical journals between 1978 and 2012

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yazhou Cui ◽  
Heng Zhao ◽  
Zhenxing Liu ◽  
Chao Liu ◽  
Jing Luan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Skeletal Disorders

Uniform style for biomedical journals

BMJ ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 2 (6141) ◽  
pp. 895-895
Author(s):  
R Carlisle ◽  
J Loveday ◽  
M Y Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Journals

scholarly journals Mixing journal, article, and author citations, and other pitfalls in the bibliographic impact factor

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1847-1862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miquel Porta ◽  
José L. Copete ◽  
Esteve Fernandez ◽  
Joan Alguacil ◽  
Janeth Murillo
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Health Studies ◽  
Individual Article ◽  
Author Citations ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Specific Number

News of the death of biomedical journals seem premature. Revamped traditional scientific journals remain highly valued sources and vehicles of information, critical debate, and knowledge. Some analyses seem to place a disproportionate emphasis on technological and formal issues, as compared to the importance ascribed to matters of power. Not all journals must necessarily have a large circulation. There are many examples of efficient, high-quality journals with a great impact on relatively small audiences for whom the journal is thought-provoking, useful, and pleasant to read. How can we achieve a better understanding of an article’s spectrum of impacts? A certain mixing of three distinct entities (journals, articles, and authors) has often pervaded judgments. Data used by the Institute for Scientific Information present weaknesses in their accuracy. The two-year limit for citations to count towards the bibliographic impact factor favors "fast-moving", "basic" biomedical disciplines and is less appropriate for public health studies. Increasing attention is given to the specific number of citations received by each individual article. It is possible to make progress towards more valid, accurate, fair, and relevant assessments.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Biomarkers: Are We Moving from Discovery to Clinical Application?

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. 1657-1667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy A Parker ◽  
Elisa Chilet-Rosell ◽  
Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado ◽  
María Pastor-Valero ◽  
Sonia Gea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Application ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Biomarker Discovery ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Technical Improvement ◽  
Diagnostic Biomarkers ◽  
Diagnostic Studies ◽  
Research Investment ◽  
Biomedical Journals

Abstract BACKGROUND Despite considerable research investment, moving from biomarker discovery to clinical application has presented unique challenges. We aimed to evaluate progress toward clinical application of a sample of molecular- and “omics”-based diagnostic tests over a 10-year period. METHODS We used Scopus to locate studies, published before the December 31, 2016, citing 107 original-research articles published in 2006 that assessed the diagnostic value of a molecular- or “omics”-based test. We identified diagnostic studies of the same test and disease and determined whether the article represented progress in the validation of the molecular test. We classified the types of progress: (a) clinical validation (measuring diagnostic accuracy in a series of patients similar to the population in which the test will be used in practice), (b) technical improvement, (c) extended diagnostic application (modification of the diagnostic question attended initially by the test), (d) economic evaluation, or (e) clinical use or implementation. RESULTS In the 10-year period analyzed, 4257 articles cited the 107 diagnostic studies; 118 (2.8%) were diagnostic studies of the same test, and of these papers, 25 (21.2%) did not constitute progress toward validation of the test for use in clinical practice (potential research waste). Of the 107 molecular- or “omics”-based tests described in 2006, only 28 (26.2%) appeared to have made progress toward clinical application. Only 4 (9.1%) of 44 proteomics-based tests had made progress toward clinical application. CONCLUSIONS Articles evaluating molecular- or “omics”-based diagnostic tests are numerous in biomedical journals. Few tests have made progress toward clinical application in the 10 years following their discovery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document