To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Evidence of work clearly connected to the composition of the Eroica is traceable from 1802 onwards. This consist of letters, sketches and other materials in the composer’s hand but also by copyists and collaborators, who worked with him. Although some fundamental documents ‘such as the autograph score’ are now lost, these materials make it possible to reconstruct in detail many aspects of the genesis of the symphony. This chapter seeks to reconstruct the different stages in the genesis of the Eroica, on the basis of a well-established research tradition ‘represented by scholar such as Gustav Nottebohm, Alan Tyson, Otto Biba, Michael C. Tusa, Bathia Churgin and Lewis Lockwood’. It focuses on general aspects of Beethoven’s creative process and draw attention to the variety of possible methodological approaches developed by musicologists during nearly two centuries of research on the subject.
BJPsych Open has come of age. This editorial celebrates the journal's fifth anniversary by reviewing the history of BJPsych Open, what we have accomplished, where we strive to go (our planned trajectory) and the passion of being an Editor-in-Chief.
Many neurosurgeons pursue graduate degrees as part of their training. In some jurisdictions, graduate degrees are considered a necessary condition of employment in academic neurosurgery. However, the relationship between possession of a graduate degree and eventual research productivity is not well established. We used bibliometric methods to analyze publications from academic Canadian neurosurgeons, with an emphasis on level of graduate training.
All neurosurgeons holding academic appointments at Canadian institutions from 2012–2016 were included. Over that time frame, Scopus was used to quantify the number of papers, number of citations, 5-year h-index and 5-year r-index, CiteScore, authorship position, and paper type (clinical or basic science). Publication output was compared between neurosurgeons grouped as MD-only, MD-Masters, or MD-PhD.
In total, 2557 abstracts from 131 Canadian neurosurgeons were analyzed. We found that MD-Masters neurosurgeons published significantly more total papers, clinical papers, and first/last author papers than MD-only neurosurgeons. MD-PhD neurosurgeons had the same findings, in addition to more basic science papers, in journals with a higher CiteScore, 5-year h-index, and 5-year r-index than both other groups. These results were preserved even with significant outliers removed. There was no difference if graduate degrees were obtained before or after starting residency. There was no correlation with career length and number of recent papers published.
The attainment of a graduate degree has an important association with future publication productivity for academic neurosurgeons. These data should be useful for hiring committees considering the value of graduate degrees from applicants for positions in academic neurosurgery.
The SPS and TBT Agreements set obligations to rationalise the development of behind-the-border measures in WTO Members. Because of the myriad of domestic measures that may fall under these disciplines, a detailed understanding of domestic measures and their rationale is essential to ensure effective implementation of the two Agreements. The SPS and TBT transparency frameworks allow all WTO Members to gain the necessary information and reach such an understanding. This chapter makes an in-depth presentation of the transparency requirements of the SPS and TBT Agreements and the potential role they may play in both informing Members and allowing them to exchange on their policies at an early level of the regulatory process. It defines the purpose, scope of application and typology of transparency mechanisms that exist under the frameworks of the two Agreements.
Systematic reviews in mental health have become useful tools for health professionals in view of the massive amount and heterogeneous nature of biomedical information available today. In order to determine the risk of bias in the studies evaluated and to avoid bias in generalizing conclusions from the reviews it is therefore important to use a very strict methodology in systematic reviews. One bias which may affect the generalization of results is publication bias, which is determined by the nature and direction of the study results. To control or minimize this type of bias, the authors of systematic reviews undertake comprehensive searches of medical databases and expand on the findings, often undertaking searches of grey literature (material which is not formally published). This paper attempts to show the consequences (and risk) of generalizing the implications of grey literature in the control of publication bias, as was proposed in a recent systematic work. By repeating the analyses for the same outcome from three different systematic reviews that included both published and grey literature our results showed that confusion between grey literature and publication bias may affect the results of a concrete meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis is a well-established approach to integrating research findings, with a long history in the sciences and in psychology in particular. Its use in summarizing research findings has special significance given increasing concerns about scientific replicability, but it has other important uses as well, such as integrating information across studies to examine models that might otherwise be too difficult to study in a single sample. This chapter discusses different forms and purposes of meta-analyses, typical elements of meta-analyses, and basic statistical and analytic issues that arise, such as choice of meta-analytic model and different sources of variability and bias in estimates. The chapter closes with discussion of emerging issues in meta-analysis and directions for future research.
Federal agencies invest taxpayer dollars every year in conservation programs that are focused on improving a suite of ecosystem services produced on private lands. A better understanding of the public benefits generated by federal conservation programs could help improve governmental efficiency and economic welfare by providing science-based evidence for use in policy decision-making regarding targeting of federal conservation investments. Of specific concern here are conservation investments made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While previous research has shown that efficiency gains are possible using cost-benefit analysis for targeting conservation investments, agency-wide implementation of this approach by policy makers has been constrained by the limited availability of location-specific information regarding conservation benefits. Cost-effective opportunities for integrating location-specific ecosystem service valuation research with USDA conservation decision-making include: (1) institutionalizing funding of comparable studies suitable for benefit transfer, (2) utilizing non-traditional data sources for research complementing benefit transfer, and (3) creating a state-of-the-art program for developing and communicating research in ecosystem service valuation exemplifying the highest standards of scientific conduct.
The chapter focuses on the initial circulation of texts in written form. It asks how female authors promoted the publication of their own works in manuscript and print, showing how women copied these works or had them copied and how they gradually became more confident in entering the public world of print publication. It considers how women in the role of patrons promoted the circulation of manuscript and printed texts composed by others, mainly by men. It then shows to what extent and why women were chosen to play another kind of role in the print publication of texts, by acting as dedicatees for authors, editors and publishers.
This chapter reviews a broad emerging literature on research transparency and reproducibility. This recent literature finds that problems with publication bias, specification searching, and an inability to reproduce empirical findings create clear deviations from the scientific pillars of openness and transparency of research. These failings can also result in incorrect inferences.
The extant individualized appraisal system consisting of literature reviews in single studies, review articles, and the academic journal and press review system is insufficient for generating a comprehensive appraisal of what is (and is not) known on a given topic. This chapter presents a proposal for a new approach to comprehensive appraisal based on a lengthy paper or report that evaluates a scientific question in an encompassing fashion, assigning a degree of (un)certainty to each hypothesis under review and encompassing all work that has been conducted on a subject, published or unpublished. This type of appraisal would not overtake the primacy of discovery studies, nor would it completely supplant individual appraisal. Rather, it would complement both by allowing exploratory work to be properly vetted.
Amidst rising concern about publication bias, pre-registration and results-blind review have grown rapidly in use. Yet discussion of both the problem of publication bias and of potential solutions has been remarkably narrow in scope: publication bias has been understood largely as a problem afflicting quantitative studies, while pre-registration and results-blind review have been almost exclusively applied to experimental or otherwise prospective research. This chapter examines the potential contributions of pre-registration and results-blind review to qualitative and quantitative retrospective research. First, the chapter provides an empirical assessment of the degree of publication bias in qualitative political science research. Second, it elaborates a general analytic framework for evaluating the feasbility and utility of pre-registration and results-blind review for confirmatory studies. Third, through a review of published studies, the paper demonstrates that much observational—and, especially, qualitative—political science research displays features that would make for credible pre-registration. The paper concludes that pre-registration and results-blind review have the potential to enhance the validity of confirmatory research across a range of empirical methods, while elevating exploratory work by making it harder to disguise discovery as testing.
There is a crucial difference between creating a treaty, expressing consent to be bound by it and bringing it into force. The focus of this chapter is on completing the process of consenting to be bound and bringing the treaty into force, once the decision to become a party has been taken and treaty officials are asked to prepare the documentation and take care of procedures. The process is examined at both the international and domestic levels. It concludes by considering the action needed immediately after entry into force, in particular publication of the treaty text and registration at the UN under Article 102 of the UN Charter.
After completing the data collection and analysis, the research problem, the data collected, and the findings need to be presented in a logical, consistent, and persuasive report. This chapters outlines a typical format for such a research report, and describes the contents of each section. It also discusses oral presentations and writing for publication.
Aspects of patent and copyright law might be better understood by a greater appreciation of a shared history between patent and copyright law. Such an appreciation leads to the recognition that, ostensibly, the resolution of the question of literary property could have sparked a reshaping of patent doctrines in the late eighteenth century and that in turn those patent doctrines could have had a reciprocal influence upon an important aspect of English copyright law of the nineteenth century. While these connections are speculative, when patent history and copyright history are put in overlay, the connections emerge as plausible ones.
Disseminating our findings is part of the scientific process, so that others know what we found. Not making our results available leads to duplication of effort because other researchers don’t know we did the work. Publication bias arises when researchers don’t publish findings because they are non-significant. We may need to publish to advance our career, but this is not the purpose of scientific articles. Confusing these two aims can lead to questionable research practices. This chapter goes through the of submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review involves the scrutiny and evaluation of our work by experts. I begin with how to choose a journal, and things to consider before you submit, then I explain the cover letter, submission, and the review process. I explain the editor’s decision, what to do if your manuscript is rejected, revising your manuscript and resubmitting it. Finally, I cover what happens after your manuscript is accepted.
New technological methods, such as rapidly developing molecular approaches, often provide new tools for scientific advances. However, these new tools are often not utilized equally across different research areas, possibly leading to disparities in progress between these areas. Here, we use empirical evidence from the scientific literature to test for potential discrepancies in the use of genetic tools to study parasitic vs non-parasitic organisms across three distinguishable molecular periods, the allozyme, nucleotide and genomics periods. Publications on parasites constitute only a fraction (<5%) of the total research output across all molecular periods and are dominated by medically relevant parasites (especially protists), particularly during the early phase of each period. Our analysis suggests an increasing complexity of topics and research questions being addressed with the development of more sophisticated molecular tools, with the research focus between the periods shifting from predominantly species discovery to broader theory-focused questions. We conclude that both new and older molecular methods offer powerful tools for research on parasites, including their diverse roles in ecosystems and their relevance as human pathogens. While older methods, such as barcoding approaches, will continue to feature in the molecular toolbox of parasitologists for years to come, we encourage parasitologists to be more responsive to new approaches that provide the tools to address broader questions.
We present an account of why we decided to retract a paper. We discovered a lack of adherence to conventional trials registration, execution, interpretation and reporting, and consequently, with the authors, needed to correct the scientific record. We set out our responses in general to strengthen research integrity.
Declaration of interest
K.S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Psychiatry. W.L., K.R.K. and S.M.L. are members of the senior editorial committee and the research integrity committee for the journal. In the past three years, S.M.L. has received research support from Janssen and Lundbeck, and personal support from Janssen, Otsuka and Sunovion.
We question whether blacklists are the best answer to the serious problem of predatory journals. In conjunction with the worrying recent rise in the number of predatory journals, a remarkable number of blacklists have been compiled for specific scientific fields. However, predatory journals are continuously changing names and publishers; they are set up to make easy money and buried shortly after. Predatory journals have such a rapidly evolving nature that it is hard to keep track of them and keep blacklists up to date. We therefore propose a focus on ‘whitelists’ and directories of virtuous journals rather than on blacklists of pseudo-journals. We suggest that a set of criteria be determined that journals have to meet to be qualify as legitimate. In addition, the scientific community should come up with strategies to close the established biomedical databases to predatory journals, thus preventing them from achieving global exposure.