Publication of research article: an art or science?

Twelve tips for medical students to conduct a systematic review

Background: Medical students engaged in research develop general skills that are instrumental to clinical practice. The systematic review, a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, represents an ideal starting point for student researchers. Aim and methods: To outline twelve tips on conducting a systematic review for medical students with limited research experience. Results: The tips in this article are practical, comprehensive, and informed by the authors experience as medical students. Conclusion: The twelve tips can help medical students contribute to the literature and build a valuable skillset for future research and clinical practice.

Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.

The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research

Research advances build upon the validity and reproducibility of previously published data and findings. Yet irreproducibility in basic biologic and preclinical research is pervasive in both academic and commercial settings. Lack of reproducibility has led to invalidated research breakthroughs, retracted articles, and aborted clinical trials. Concerns and requirements for transparent, reproducible, and translatable research are accelerated by the rapid growth of "post-publication peer review," open access publishing, and data sharing that facilitate the identification of irreproducible data/studies; they are magnified by the explosion of high-throughput technologies, genomics, and other data-intensive disciplines. Collectively, these changes and challenges are decreasing the effectiveness of traditional research quality mechanisms and are contributing to unacceptable-and unsustainable-levels of irreproducibility. The global oncology and basic biologic research communities can no longer tolerate or afford widespread irreproducible research. This article discusses (i) how irreproducibility in preclinical research can ultimately be traced to an absence of a unifying life science standards framework, and (ii) makes an urgent case for the expanded development and use of consensus-based standards to both enhance reproducibility and drive innovations in cancer research.

Possible recurrence of keratocyst in nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome: A review of literature

This review will highlight some current areas of difficulty or controversy in diagnosis and treatment of nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (NBCCS). The odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) has significant growth capacity and recurrence potential and is occasionally indicative of the NBCCS. The objective of this study is to clarify the causes of the recurrence of OKC in NBCCS. A literature search was conducted using Medline, accessed via the National Library of Medicine PubMed interface, searching for articles relating to the cause of recurrence of keratocyst in NBCCS written in English. This study has described the previous and the current outcomes of the treatment of OKC (recurrent cause). A protocol was then agreed to search for the possible causes of keratocyst recurrence in NBCCS. The general treatment of other manifestation of NBCCS has excluded from this study. Studies describing cohort, case series and miscellaneous clinical reports were retrieved and evaluated from 2010 to 2012.