Search

News has been shown to influence public perception, affect technology development, and increase public expression. We demonstrate that framing, a subjective aspect of news, appears to influence both significant public perception changes and federal legislation. We show that specific features of news, such as publishing volume, appear to influence sustained public attention, as measured by annual Google Trends data, and federal legislation. We observe that federal legislative activity is often foreshadowed by periods of high news volume and similarity between articles, which we call hyperconcentrated news periods. Last, we contribute the measures of framing density and framing polarity, which provide a quantitative assessment of news framing in a domain. We demonstrate that these measures appear to correlate substantially with the results of earlier human surveys. We note, however, that our analysis does not disprove reverse causality and does not model other confounding factors.

This paper reviews the court-released discovery documents obtained from litigation against Monsanto over its herbicide Roundup and through Freedom of Information Act requests (requests to regulatory agencies and public universities in the United States). We sought evidence of corporate malfeasance and undisclosed conflicts of interest with respect to issues of scientific integrity. The findings include evidence of ghostwriting, interference in journal publication, and undue influence of a federal regulatory agency.

Aims: To examine how pharmaceutical products that were first marketed between 1950 and 1980 were promoted to physicians through advertisements and briefly review advertising regulations and accuracy of the advertisements in the light of modern knowledge., Methods: We systematically reviewed advertisements promoting drugs for specific therapeutic areas, namely central nervous system disorders (anxiety and sleep disorders, depression, psychoses, and Parkinson's disease), respiratory disorders, cardiovascular disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. We examined about 800 issues of the British Medical Journal (1950-1980) and about 150 issues of World Medicine (1965-1984)., Results: Advertising material was minimally regulated until the mid-1970s. Many drugs were marketed with little preclinical or clinical knowledge and some with the expectation that prescribers would obtain further data. The peak of advertising occurred in parallel with the surge in the release of novel drugs during the 1960s, but declined markedly after the mid-1970s. Advertisements generally contained little useful prescribing information. The period we investigated saw the release of many novel pharmaceuticals in the therapeutic areas we examined, and many (or their class successors) still play important therapeutic roles, including benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, phenothiazines, levodopa, selective and non-selective β-adrenoceptor antagonists, thiazide diuretics, β-adrenoceptor agonists, and histamine H 2 receptor antagonists., Conclusions: Advertising pharmaceuticals in the BMJ and World Medicine in 1950-1980 was poorly regulated and often lacked rigour. However, advertisements were gradually modified in the light of increasing clinical pharmacological knowledge, and they reflect an exciting period for the introduction of many drugs that continue to be of benefit today., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.

In this article, we consider the privacy implications of posting data from small, randomized trials, observational studies, or case series in anesthesia from a few (e.g., 1-3) hospitals. Prior to publishing such data as supplemental digital content, the authors remove attributes that could be used to re-identify individuals, a process known as "anonymization." Posting health information that has been properly "de-identified" is assumed to pose no risks to patient privacy. Yet, computer scientists have demonstrated that this assumption is flawed. We consider various realistic scenarios of how the publication of such data could lead to breaches of patient privacy. Several examples of successful privacy attacks are reviewed, as well as the methods used. We survey the latest models and methods from computer science for protecting health information and their application to posting data from small anesthesia studies. To illustrate the vulnerability of such published data, we calculate the "population uniqueness" for patients undergoing one or more surgical procedures using data from the State of Texas. For a patient selected uniformly at random, the probability that an adversary could match this patient's record to a unique record in the state external database was 42.8% (SE < 0.1%). Despite the 42.8% being an unacceptably high level of risk, it underestimates the risk for patients from smaller states or provinces. We propose an editorial policy that greatly reduces the likelihood of a privacy breach, while supporting the goal of transparency of the research process.

Scientific journals may incur scientific error if articles are tainted by research misconduct. While some journals' ethical policies, especially those on conflicts of interest, have improved over recent years, with some adopting a uniform approach, only around half of biomedical journals, principally those with higher impact factors, currently have formal misconduct policies, mainly for handling allegations. Worryingly, since a response to allegations would reasonably require an a priori definition, far fewer journals have publicly available definitions of misconduct. While some journals and editors' associations have taken significant steps to prevent and detect misconduct and respond to allegations, the content, visibility of and access to these policies varies considerably. In addition, while the lack of misconduct policies may prompt and maintain a de novo approach for journals, potentially causing stress, publication delays and even legal disputes, the lack of uniformity may be a matter of contention for research stakeholders such as editors, authors and their institutions, and publishers. Although each case may need an individual approach, I argue that posting highly visible, readily accessible, comprehensive, consistent misconduct policies could prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, increase the number of retractions of already published papers and, perhaps, reduce research misconduct. Although legally problematic, a concerted approach, with sharing of information between editors, which is clearly explained in journal websites, could also help. Ideally, journals, editors' associations, and publishers should seek consistency and homogenise misconduct policies to maintain public confidence in the integrity of biomedical research publications., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

We report the outcomes of BioMed Central's public consultation on implementing open data-compliant licensing in peer-reviewed open access journals. Respondents (42) to the 2012 consultation were six to one in favor (29 in support; 5 against; 8 abstentions) of changing our authors' default open access copyright license agreement, to introduce the Creative Commons CC0 public domain waiver for data published in BioMed Central's journals. We summarize the different questions we received in response to the consultation and our responses to them - matters such as citation, plagiarism, patient privacy, and commercial use were raised. In light of the support for open data in our journals we outline our plans to implement, in September 2013, a combined Creative Commons Attribution license for published articles (papers) and Creative Commons CC0 waiver for published data.

Publication is one of the primary rewards in the academic research community and is the first step in the dissemination of a new discovery that could lead to recognition and opportunity. Because of this, the publication of research can serve as a tacit endorsement of the methodology behind the science. This becomes a problem when vulnerable populations that are incapable of giving legitimate informed consent, such as prisoners, are used in research. The problem is especially critical in the field of transplant research, in which unverified consent can enable research that exploits the vulnerabilities of prisoners, especially those awaiting execution. Because the doctrine of informed consent is central to the protection of vulnerable populations, we have performed a historical analysis of the standards of informed consent in codes of international human subject protections to form the foundation for our limit and ban recommendations: (1) limit the publication of transplant research involving prisoners in general and (2) ban the publication of transplant research involving executed prisoners in particular., (Copyright © 2013 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)