Posted on July 22, 2015 by Thomas Lawrence Long
National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director
Bethesda, MD 20892
Date: July 22, 2015
Dear NIH Stakeholders:
In order to advance the NIH mission, we are developing an NIH-wide Strategic Plan. The goal of this 5-year plan is to outline a vision for biomedical research that ultimately extends healthy life and reduces illness and disability. NIH senior leadership and staff have developed a proposed framework for the Strategic Plan that identifies areas of opportunity across all biomedicine and unifying principles to guide NIH’s support of the biomedical research enterprise. The aim is to pursue crosscutting areas of research that span NIH’s 27 Institutes, Centers, and Offices.
I invite you to review the framework in our Request for Information (RFI: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-118.html) and on the NIH website (http://www.nih.gov/about/strategic-plan), and to provide your feedback via the RFI submission site (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rfi/rfi.cfm?ID=46). I encourage stakeholder organizations (e.g., patient advocacy groups, professional societies) to submit a single response reflective of the views of the organization/membership as a whole. We also will be hosting webinars to gather additional input. These webinars will be held in early to mid-August.
Your input is vital to ensuring that the NIH Strategic Plan positions biomedical research on a promising and visionary path. I appreciate your time and consideration in assisting us with this effort.
Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D.
Principal Deputy Director, NIH
Filed under: Announcement, Research | Leave a comment »
Posted on January 14, 2015 by Thomas Lawrence Long
A study published in BMJ 2014;349 reports that mass-media misrepresentations and inaccuracies concerning research findings are often the products of university communication offices’ self-promotion efforts, the result of increasing competition among high education institutions to claim points of pride.
According to this study’s abstract:
Results 40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated. Odds ratios for each category of analysis were 6.5 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12), 20 (7.6 to 51), and 56 (15 to 211). At the same time, there was little evidence that exaggeration in press releases increased the uptake of news. . . . Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases. Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news. (http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7015)
Researchers should pay careful attention to both inaccuracies and omissions in popular new reporting of their research. At the very least, a letter to the editor or a comment on the news web site is in order.
Simple boilerplate language follows:
I am writing in response to your article [title of news article here] by [journalist’s name here] that you published on [date of the news article here]. While I am grateful that you have brought my [and my colleagues’] research to a wider audience, I need to correct some inaccuracies [and omissions].
First, . . .
Second, . . .
Finally, . . .
Our research has promise but that potential is not yet fulfilled.
By responding to news reports of your research, you refine the public discussion and inform non-expert readers and journalists, “a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news.”
Filed under: Publishing Tips, Research, Writing Tips | Leave a comment »
Posted on October 23, 2013 by Thomas Lawrence Long
Research Article on Facilitators/Inhibitors of Productivity
Dowling, D. A., Savrin, C., & Graham, G. C.. (2013). Writing for publication: Perspectives of graduate nursing students and doctorally prepared faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(7), 371-5.
Abstract: Publication is a common expectation for both faculty and graduate students in schools of nursing. Little is known about the perceptions of students and faculty regarding what supports or interferes with students’ success in writing for publication. Perceptions of supports and barriers to writing for publication and the differences in perceptions between graduate nursing students and faculty were examined. A descriptive comparative design was used to sample master’s (n = 62), Doctor of Nursing Practice (n = 66), and Doctor of Philosophy (n = 7) students and graduate faculty (n = 35) using two investigator-developed surveys. Students (71.1%) and faculty (57.6%) identified working with faculty and mentors as the greatest support. Students’ primary barrier was finding time (64.5%). Faculty identified not knowing how to get started (63.6%) as the students’ greatest barrier. Findings support that mentoring and finding sufficient time for writing are priorities for the development of a plan to support students in writing for publication. [Abstract provided by the journal.]
Filed under: Research, Writing Tips | Leave a comment »
Posted on July 17, 2013 by Thomas Lawrence Long
The Scholarly Kitchen interviews Mike Rossner, retiring director of Rockefeller University Press, on scientific integrity, making research data publicly available and routes to open access. The interview is open access on the blog site: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/interview-with-mike-rossner-on-scientific-integrity-making-research-data-publicly-available-and-routes-to-open-access/
Filed under: News, Research, Writing Tips | Tagged: ethics, integrity | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 30, 2012 by Thomas Lawrence Long
Jackie McGrath, Roy Brown and Haifa Samra’s new article, “Before You Search the Literature: How to Prepare and Get the Most Out of Citation Databases,” will be especially helpful to emerging researchers and doctoral students (as well as clinicians):
Abstract: As evidence-based practice becomes more integrated into routine care, systematically searching of the literature is essential to making informed clinical decisions. To uncover all the evidence and get the most unbiased sense of what is known about a particular phenomenon or caregiving practice, a clear method of searching that is systematic is needed. This article provides a discussion of six steps in a systematic search: (1) constructing the question, (2) choose the appropriate database(s), (3) formulate a search strategy, (4) perform the search, (5) evaluate the results, (6) good results (answer the question) = use the search information, (7) bad results = start over (refine the search strategies). Tips for working with a librarian are also provided. Lastly, a checklist developed to facilitate the steps of the searching process is discussed and provided for use by readers. Nurses are not trained to systematically search the literature, yet evidence-based practice demands that nurses and all health professionals be familiar with the searching process, especially when making evidence-based caregiving decisions.
Filed under: Research | Tagged: literature search | Leave a comment »
Posted on February 8, 2012 by Thomas Lawrence Long
Today Inside Higher Ed interviews researcher Laura Stark, author of a new book published by University of Chicago Press, Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research.
The interview includes practical advice for successful IRB application.
Filed under: Research, Writing Tips | Tagged: IRB | Leave a comment »