Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead?
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
4 gostaram•2,297 visualizações
Tony Brown's emotive expose on the bias of medical research and publication. The flaws in our current paradigms.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead?
Semelhante a Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? (20)
Mais de SMACC Conference
Mais de SMACC Conference (20)
Último
Último (20)
Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead?
- 1. Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Professor Tony Brown Senior Staff Specialist Department of Emergency Medicine Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital
- 2. Competing Interests Declaration Professor Tony Brown Educational / research funding: Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire. Avant.
- 3. 550,000
- 4. 550,000 > 1 / minute
- 5. 550,000 > 1 / minute >150 this morning
- 6. 550,000 > 1 / minute >150 this morning > 5,600 (MedlineTM)
- 7. Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Aims • What are journals for ? • What do they do ? • Who benefits ? • What are the problems ? • What are the alternatives ?
- 8. What are journals for ?
- 9. What are journals for ? • Registration • Certification • Awareness • Archiving
- 10. What do they do ?
- 11. What do they do ? • Online submission • Peer review • Editorial decision • Production • Publication
- 12. Who benefits ?
- 13. Who benefits ? • Author • Publisher • Editor / peer reviewers
- 14. What are the problems?
- 15. What are the problems? • Peer review • Most papers are rubbish • Research hijacked • Restricted full-text access
- 16. What are the problems? Peer review “Slow, expensive, ineffective, a lottery, biased, incapable of detecting fraud and prone to abuse” Smith R. BMJ 2004;329:242-4
- 17. What are the problems? Most papers are rubbish • “Words on paper rarely lead directly to change – and thank goodness they don’t, considering the rubbish that journals often publish”. Smith R. BMJ 2004;329:242-4 • Few trials are valid and relevant ( <1% – 7% ) Haynes RB. ACP J Club 1993;119:A22-A23 Scott I, Glaziou P. Med J Aust 2012;197:374-8
- 18. What are the problems? Research hijacked Radcliffe Publishing 2013 Harper Collins 2013
- 19. What are the problems? Restricted full-text access $24 billion biomedical publishing industry
- 20. What are the alternatives?
- 21. What are the alternatives? • Release ALL data / publish negative trials • Focus on the reader • Post publication review • ‘publish then filter’ • rating systems / Web 2.0 tools / crowdsourcing • Educational / translational focus …
- 22. What are the alternatives? Educational / translational focus Websites Blog posts Case studies Teaching videos Podcasts Elearning modules Apps ALL informed by the best literature
- 23. Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Conclusions • Not yet – but smelling badly ! • Return the focus back onto the reader • Expect and embrace all forms of post publication review • Focus on education / translation
- 24. Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Conclusions • Not yet – but smelling badly … • Return the focus back onto the reader • Expect / embrace post publication review • Focus on education / translation • EXCEPTION ! Emerg Med Australas 2014; 26 (1). Feb issue