Cargando…

Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?

This short essay considers preferential publication and impact factor as stimuli, instrumentally conditioning medical researchers. The author postulates that publication houses emphasising publication of the highest levels of evidence (ie, meta-analyses) at the detriment of other levels of evidence,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Seery, Samuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285930/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32566754
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520924002
_version_ 1783544789086502912
author Seery, Samuel
author_facet Seery, Samuel
author_sort Seery, Samuel
collection PubMed
description This short essay considers preferential publication and impact factor as stimuli, instrumentally conditioning medical researchers. The author postulates that publication houses emphasising publication of the highest levels of evidence (ie, meta-analyses) at the detriment of other levels of evidence, is inadvertently guiding researchers to overlook necessary research for more individualised care. The author recommends preferential publication and impact factor should be openly discussed by medical educators to ensure we are training researchers to conduct meaningful, high quality, innovative research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7285930
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72859302020-06-19 Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow? Seery, Samuel J Med Educ Curric Dev Opinion This short essay considers preferential publication and impact factor as stimuli, instrumentally conditioning medical researchers. The author postulates that publication houses emphasising publication of the highest levels of evidence (ie, meta-analyses) at the detriment of other levels of evidence, is inadvertently guiding researchers to overlook necessary research for more individualised care. The author recommends preferential publication and impact factor should be openly discussed by medical educators to ensure we are training researchers to conduct meaningful, high quality, innovative research. SAGE Publications 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7285930/ /pubmed/32566754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520924002 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Opinion
Seery, Samuel
Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title_full Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title_fullStr Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title_full_unstemmed Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title_short Are We Conditioning EBM Researchers to be Innovative or Narrow?
title_sort are we conditioning ebm researchers to be innovative or narrow?
topic Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285930/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32566754
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520924002
work_keys_str_mv AT seerysamuel areweconditioningebmresearcherstobeinnovativeornarrow