Artículos biomédicos/Biomedical articles

El artículo de revisión  The review article  N. R. Webster British Journal of Anaesthesia 100 (3): 285-7 (2008) http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/3/285.full.pdf    La importancia de la debida citación de referencias de los artículos biomédicos The importance of proper citation of references in biomedical articles. Masic I. Faculty of medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Acta Inform Med. 2013;21(3):148-55. doi: 10.5455/aim.2013.21.148-155. Abstract In scientific circles, the reference is the information that is necessary to the reader in identifying and finding used sources. The basic rule when listingthe sources used is that references must be accurate, complete and should be consistently applied. On the other hand, quoting implies verbatim written or verbal repetition of parts of the text or words written by others that can be checked in original. Authors of every new scientific article need to explain how their study or research fits with previous one in the same or similar fields. A typical article in the health sciences refers to approximately 20-30 other articles published in peer reviewed journals, cite once or hundreds times. Citations typically appear in two formats: a) as in-text citations where the sources of information are briefly identified in the text; or b) in the reference list at the end of the publication (book chapter, manuscript,article, etc.) that provides full bibliographic information for each source. Group of publishers met in Vancouver in 1978 and decided to prescribe uniform technical propositions for publication. Adopted in the 1979 by the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, then the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE), whose review in 1982 entered the official application by 300 international biomedical journals. Authors writing articles for publication in biomedical publications used predominantly citation styles: Vancouver style, Harward style, PubMed style, ICMJE, APA, etc. The paper gives examples of all of these styles of citation to the authors in order to facilitate their applications. Also in this paper is given the review about the problem of plagiarism which becomes more common in the writing of scientific and technical articles in biomedicine. KEYWORDS:citing and quoting references, plagiarism., scientometrics  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3804522/   Puntos de vista sobre el sistema de revisión por pares de las revistas biomédicas: un estudio en línea de académicos de universidades de alto rango en línea  Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. Ho RC, Mak KK, Tao R, Lu Y, Day JR, Pan F. Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jun 7;13:74. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-74. Abstract BACKGROUND:Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally. METHODS: A total of 28,009 biomedical academics from high-ranking universities listed by the 2009 Times Higher Education Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS) World University Rankings were contacted by email between March 2010 and August 2010. 1,340 completed an online survey which focused on their academic background, negative experiences and views on biomedical journal peer review and the results were compared among basic scientists, clinicians and clinician scientists. RESULTS:Fewer than half of the respondents agreed that the peer review systems of biomedical journals were fair (48.4%), scientific (47.5%), or transparent (25.1%). Nevertheless, 58.2% of the respondents agreed that authors should remain anonymous and 64.4% agreed that reviewers should not be disclosed. Most, (67.7%) agreed to the establishment of an appeal system. The proportion of native English-speaking respondents who agreed that the "peer review system is fair" was significantly higher than for non-native respondents (p = 0.02). Similarly, the proportion of clinicians stating that the "peer review system is fair" was significantly higher than that for basic scientists and clinician-scientists (p = 0.004). For females, (β = -0.1, p = 0.03), the frequency of encountering personal attacks in reviewers' comments (β = -0.1, p = 0.002) and the frequency of imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers (β = -0.06, p = 0.04) were independently and inversely associated with agreement that "the peer review system is fair". CONCLUSION:Academics are divided on the issue of whether the biomedical journal peer review system is fair, scientific and transparent. A majority of academics agreed with the double-blind peer review and to the establishment of an appeal system. Female academics, experience of personal attacks and imposition of unnecessary references by reviewers were related to disagreement about fairness of the peer review system of biomedical journals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685540/pdf/1471-2288-13-74.pdf

Atentamente Anestesiología y Medicina del Dolor www.anestesia-dolor.org