Editorial: Curiosity Versus Criticism in Scientific Publication.
作者信息
Maltenfort Mitchell
机构信息
The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, 125 South 9th Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
出版信息
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1353-5. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4768-5. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Editorial: Curiosity Versus Criticism in Scientific Publication.社论：科学出版中的好奇心与批判性
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1353-5. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4768-5. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
2
Not the Last Word: Inigo Montoya and Statistical Significance.并非最终定论：伊尼戈·蒙托亚与统计学显著性
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1370-4. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4814-3. Epub 2016 Apr 6.
3
Do as you would be done by: write as you would wish to read.己所不欲，勿施于人；所欲而书，即为读者之愿。
J Physiol. 2012 Dec 15;590(24):6251-4. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.248278.
4
Editorial: The Minimum Clinically Important Difference-The Least We Can Do.社论：最小临床重要差异——我们所能做的最少要求。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Apr;475(4):929-932. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5253-5. Epub 2017 Jan 25.
5
Guidelines for reporting of statistics in European Urology.《欧洲泌尿外科杂志》统计数据报告指南
Eur Urol. 2015 Feb;67(2):181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.024. Epub 2014 Jul 15.
6
Replicability, Reproducibility, and Fragility of Research Findings-Ultimately, Caveat Emptor.研究结果的可重复性、再现性与脆弱性——最终，买家需谨慎。
Anesth Analg. 2016 Jul;123(1):244-8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001398.
7
Writing a peer review: a primer for junior researchers.撰写同行评审：初级研究人员入门指南。
Cardiovasc Res. 2019 Aug 1;115(10):e93-e95. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz174.
8
Data presentation and the use of statistical tests in biomedical journals: can we reach a consensus?生物医学期刊中的数据呈现与统计检验的应用：我们能达成共识吗？
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2011 May;38(5):285-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2011.05508.x.
9
Documenting the methods history: would it improve the interpretability of studies?记录方法的历史：这会提高研究的可解释性吗？
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012 Jul 1;5(4):418-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.967646.
10
Acknowledging and Overcoming Nonreproducibility in Basic and Preclinical Research.认识并克服基础研究和临床前研究中的不可重复性
JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317(10):1019-1020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0549.
本文引用的文献
1
Editorial: No-difference Studies Make a Big Difference.社论：无差异研究意义重大。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3329-31. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4535-z. Epub 2015 Sep 1.
2
Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.同行评审中阳性结果偏倚存在情况的检测：一项随机对照试验。
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 22;170(21):1934-9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406.
3
Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not.由商业资金资助且基于美国开展的研究更有可能发表；而有负面结果的高质量研究则不然。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 May;89(5):1010-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01152.
Zotero 插件