New publication

Commentary

New publication     

Writing qualitative research for publication

Atypical Mesoblastic Nephroma (AMN) is a rare infantile renal tumour which may behave aggressively, in contrast to conventional Mesoblastic nephroma. During a 10 year period we encountered four cases of AMN. The mean age of presentation was three months. Size varied from 9-18 cms. All were soft and fleshy with a weight varying from 290-1200 gms. Three cases revealed cystic changes. Hemorrhage and necrosis was seen in all four cases. One case had associated Nephroblastomatosis Complex. The capsule and ureter were involved in one case each. Two of the four patients died of distant metastasis. Thus a close periodic follow up by non-invasive imaging techniques is indicated for early detection of recurrence and or metastasis in cases of AMN.     

A new publication policy.

Proposes a new policy that encourages posthumous publication of one's professional writings. This policy would enable researchers to collect and self-edit their material over the years and would encourage a reduction in the amount of material published. What would be published would be of high quality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

NIH funding and biomedical publication output

An investigation of the relationship between NIH funding and biomedical publication output is reported for 229 major NIH supported institutions. A correlation of 0.95 was found between the amount of NIH funding and the number biomedical publications for 132 U.S. universities. For 52 hospitals a correlation of 0.89 was found. For all 229 institutions it was found that NIH provided 91% of the boimedical research support from major federal agencies, and more than half of the total extramural biomedical research support. There was no indication of either economies or diseconomies of scale in the number of publications produced by the institutions, which ranged from a few publications per year to over 700 per year.     

Meta-analysis and selective publication bias.

Disagrees with J. T. Landman and R. M. Dawes (see record 1982-30838-001), who support M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. It is suggested that since it is possible that one-fourth to one-half of the mean effect size reported by Smith and Glass might have been due to selective reporting, it is wrong and misleading to continue claiming that the patient in psychotherapy is better off than 75% of untreated controls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Replicability as a publication criterion.

From time to time various suggestions have been made on how to reduce publication lag. It has been pointed out that raising the methodological standards by which articles are judged would help solve the lag problem and, at the same time, increase the quality of published articles. One particular methodological criterion which might help the present publication lag to disappear is that of replicability--requiring every author to satisfy the editor that his major results have been repeated before the article is considered for publication. Articles using replication designs which are not satisfactory to the editor could be given lowest publication priority. Articles with no attempt at replication would be rejected. There is good reason to anticipate that use of the repeatability criterion might do more than simply increase rejections and reduce publication lag. It seems likely that, under such a built-in reward system, more studies would be designed with replication in mind, the quality of replication (and generalization) designs would improve, and a great deal of overelaborate statistical analysis will disappear. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Supports Newman's (1966) suggestions for improving evaluation procedures, focusing on removing the anonymity of reviewers of submitted papers. Identification of reviewers may hinder emotional and biased selection decisions. (0 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The publication process: steps to success

In this article, the author discusses the six steps anyone can use to have a successful writing career. She outlines each step and encourages her audience to participate at each level in order to be successful. The steps are: need/desire; expertise; write; peer review; submit; acceptance and/or revise and re-submit.     

Where do I begin? Writing for publication

Nursing is changing. All nurses, clinical and management, are being encouraged to write. Some educators are under considerable pressure to write as part of their jobs. The university system has always insisted that teaching staff publish and many nursing colleges and schools are now joining the higher educational system. This article is about getting started in writing. It describes what to write, who to write it for and how to write for publication.