Word: plos
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...when scientists only publish their results selectively. Industry scientists say that's nonsense. Greg Miller, executive VP of innovation for National Dairy Council, says sheer volume of results doesn't mean much. "As a scientist I'm more interested in the quality of the research," he says. And the PloS Medicine study looks only at the absolute number of favorable vs. unfavorable results, not at the nature of the research undertaken or at how much attention each publication received. "We [at National Dairy Council] bring good science to the table," Miller says...
...anyone who tries to keep track of which foods provide which health benefits, life seemed a little more complicated this morning. The first major analysis of nutritional research found the science to be every bit as susceptible to sponsor bias as pharmaceuticals. In a paper published online Tuesday in PloS Medicine researchers from Children's Hospital Boston report that when studies linking beverages to health are funded entirely by industry, the conclusions are four to eight times more likely to support the sponsor's commercial interest than studies with no industry funding. And the implications of the findings, says senior...
...Major medical journals do publish industry-funded science as long as it meets the publications' quality standards. Those standards require scientists to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. But compliance is generally based on the honor system, leaving scientists to interpret the journal policies themselves. (The PloS Medicine paper noted a sharp uptick in the number of articles citing potential conflicts over the five-year study period - a trend Ludwig attributes to more stringent journal standards and better self-policing among scientists...
...brings.The hermetic process of traditional peer-review does little to facilitate free intellectual dissemination. Scientific manuscripts are typically reviewed by a small number of anonymous experts, who have a throttlehold on whom and what deserves attention. In October 2000, three concerned biomedical scientists founded the Public Library of Science (PLoS), calling on fellow scientists to boycott journals that refused to make full-text papers part of the public domain within six months of publication. Yet although some scientific publishers conformed to the PLoS’s policy guidelines, most remained unresponsive.Undeterred, PLoS continued its dedication to the principle of open...
...editors: Re: “Keep Science in Print,” editorial, Oct. 5. As a Harvard graduate and co-founder of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), I was appalled by your editorial, “Keep Science in Print” in which you condemn our new journal PLoS One. The article is too ill-informed and riddled with factual inaccuracies to be taken seriously as an attack on our efforts to rejuvenate peer review by opening up the process to all members of the scientific community. I would normally feel compelled to correct all these errors...