Abstract
Retracted publications, the issue of poor results reporting, and the increasing value of online teaching methods.
Fang et al.1 think that it is important to evaluate scientific publications that have been retracted because they feel studying projects that have failed can give a vital indication of the current state of errors in the scientific process.
Writing and the communication of ideas is obviously crucial in the scientific community, and is the core aspect of our jobs as medical writers.
Download the full article
References
- Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109(42):17028–33.
- Global Alliance of Publication Professionals (GAPP), Woolley KL, Gertel A, Hamilton C, Jacobs A, Snyder G. Poor compliance with reporting research results – we know it's a problem … how do we fix it? Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28(11):1857–60.
- Phadtare A, Bahmani A, Shah A, Pietrobon R. Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Med Educ 2009;9:27.
Visit the EMWA website
Search
Articles
Links
Editoral Board
Editor-in-Chief
Co-Editors
Managing Editor
Victoria White
Deputy Managing Editor
Alicia Brooks Waltman
Associate Editors
Section Editors
AI/Automation
Biotechnology
Digital Communication
EMWA News
Freelancing
Gained in Translation
Getting Your Foot in the Door
Good Writing Practice
Pablo Izquierdo / Alison McIntosh
In the Bookstores
Publications
Medical Communications/Writing for Patients
Medical Devices
My First Medical Writing
News from the EMA
Pharmacovigilance
Regulatory Matters
Regulatory Public Disclosure
Louisa Ludwig-Begall / Sarah Kabani
The Crofter: Sustainable Communications
Veterinary Writing
Editors Emeritus
Layout Designer
Chris Monk