Hasan Yazici1, Feride Gogus2, Fehim Esen3, Yusuf Yazici4. 1. Ethics Committee, University of Istanbul, Beyazit Yerleskesi, Beyazit, Istanbul 34116, Turkey. Electronic address: hasan@yazici.net. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Emniyet Mahallesi, Ankara 06560, Turkey. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, Basibuyuk Yerleskesi, Maltepe, Istanbul 34854, Turkey. 4. Department of Medicine (Rheumatology), NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, 333 East 38th St, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is concern that self-critique with authors acknowledging limitations of their work is not given due importance in scientific articles. We had the impression that this was more true for articles in basic compared with clinical science. We thus surveyed for the presence of self-critique in the discussion sections of the original articles in three rheumatology journals with attention to differences between the basic and the clinical science articles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The discussion sections of the original articles in January, May, and September 2012 issues of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Arthritis and Rheumatism, and Rheumatology (Oxford) were surveyed (n = 223) after classifying each article as mainly related to clinical or basic science. The discussion sections were electronically scanned by two observers for the presence of the root word "limit" or its derivatives who also read each discussion section for the presence of any limitations otherwise voiced. RESULTS: A limitation discussion in any form was present in only 19 (20.2%) or 29 (30.1%) of 94 basic science vs. 95 (73.6%) or 107 (82.3%) of 129 clinical science articles (P < 0.0001 for either observer). CONCLUSION: Self-critique, especially lacking in basic science articles, should be given due attention.
OBJECTIVES: There is concern that self-critique with authors acknowledging limitations of their work is not given due importance in scientific articles. We had the impression that this was more true for articles in basic compared with clinical science. We thus surveyed for the presence of self-critique in the discussion sections of the original articles in three rheumatology journals with attention to differences between the basic and the clinical science articles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The discussion sections of the original articles in January, May, and September 2012 issues of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Arthritis and Rheumatism, and Rheumatology (Oxford) were surveyed (n = 223) after classifying each article as mainly related to clinical or basic science. The discussion sections were electronically scanned by two observers for the presence of the root word "limit" or its derivatives who also read each discussion section for the presence of any limitations otherwise voiced. RESULTS: A limitation discussion in any form was present in only 19 (20.2%) or 29 (30.1%) of 94 basic science vs. 95 (73.6%) or 107 (82.3%) of 129 clinical science articles (P < 0.0001 for either observer). CONCLUSION: Self-critique, especially lacking in basic science articles, should be given due attention.