Literature DB >> 30692702

The Second Mediterranean Seminar on Science Writing, Editing and Publishing (SWEP - 2018), Sarajevo, December 8th, 2018.

Izet Masic1, Miro Jakovljevic2, Osman Sinanovic3, Srecko Gajovic1, Mirko Spiroski4, Rasim Jusufovic5, Sekib Sokolovic6, Besim Prnjavorac7, Enver Zerem8, Benjamin Djulbegovic9, Selma Porovic10, Slobodan Jankovic11, Mirsad Hadzikadic12, Lejla Zunic13, Edin Begic14, Edin Nislic15, Nedim Begic16, Emir Becirovic17, Anis Cerovac18, Venesa Skrijelj19, Jasmina Nuhanovic20.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  Academic publishing; Bias; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Cardiology; Decision making; Dentistry; Education; Ghostwriting; Knowledge; Medical Science; Medicine; Misconduct; Pediatrics; Perinatology; Republic of Macedonia; Science; Translational Plagiarism; article; author contribution; authorship; clinical research; data accuracy; data interpretation; design; development of sciences; education; ethical issues; ethics; guest authoring; infant; information technology; number of citations; oral presentation; person-centered care; poster; presentation; promotion; pseudoscience; publishing; science; science metric; scientific communication; scientific experimental error; scientific impact factor; scientific outsourcing; scientific publishing; speech; statistical; systematic reviews; title; un-ethical behavior; world; writing

Year:  2018        PMID: 30692702      PMCID: PMC6311123          DOI: 10.5455/aim.2016.24.284-299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Inform Med        ISSN: 0353-8109


× No keyword cloud information.

WHY SWEP 2018?

Title of Days of AMNuBiH 2018” and “SWEP 2018” is “Ethical Dilemmas in Science Editing and Publishing”. Why? If one wants to create a scientific work, must have on his mind that creating a scientific work requires creativity and openness, honesty, trust, and obeying the ethical principles for writing a scientific paper. While working on a an biomedical research involving human subjects medical workers should have on mind that it is the duty of the physician to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out (1, 2). The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles to provide guidance to physicians and other participants in medical research involving human subjects (1) (Figure 1). Medical research involving human subjects includes research on identifiable human material or identifiable data. It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health of the people. The physician’s knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfillment of this duty. The Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association binds the physician with the words, „The health of my patient will be my first consideration“(Declaration of Geneva, Adopted by the 2nd General Assembly of the WMA, Geneva, Switzerland, September 1948) (1, 2)., and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, „A physician shall act only in the patient’s interest when providing medical care which might have the effect of weakening the physical and mental condition of the patient“ (2). Medical progress is based on research which ultimately must rest in part on experimentation involving human subjects. In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the wellbeing of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society. The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to improve prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of disease. Even the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods must continuously be challenged through research for their effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality. In current medical practice and in medical research, most prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involve risks and burdens. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote respect for all human beings and protect their health and rights. Some research populations are vulnerable and need special protection. The particular need of the economically and medically disadvantaged must be recognized. Special attention is also required for those who cannot give of refuse consent for themselves, for those who may be subject to giving consent under duress, for those who will not benefit personally from the research and for those for whom the research is combined with care (1). Research investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal and regulatory requirements for research on human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international requirements. No national ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects see forth in Helsinki Declaration. In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible, conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort if may entail. The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from participation in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. After ensuring that the subject has understood the information, the physician should then obtain the subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be obtained in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed. Research on individuals from whom it is not possible to obtain consent, including proxy or advance consent, should be done only if the physical/mental condition that prevents obtaining informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research population. The specific reasons for involving research subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent should be stated in the experimental protocol for consideration and approval of the review committee. The protocol should state that consent to remain in the research should be obtained as soon as possible from the individual or a legally authorized surrogate. Both authors and publishers have ethical obligations. In publication of the results of research, the investigators are obliged to preserve the accuracy of the results. Negative as well as positive results should be published or otherwise publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared in the publication. The principles described above. Extracted from the document of Helsinki and other declarations, are rules for every author, editor and publisher who want that their results of research and investigation make visible for national or international academic community via scientific or professional journals or via on-line data bases (3). Unfortunately a lot of unethical behaviors today are very common and used in practice that COPE, ICMJE, EASE, WAME and other associations which try to avoid and prevent it have a lot of troubles to fight with it (4). Title of the Second SWEP “Ethical dilemmas in Science Editing and Publishing” and presentations of authors at this conference tried, with their personal experiences, a to help solve this great problem, at least in our environment. Good publication practices do not develop by chance, and will become established only if they are actively promoted. Good decisions and strong editorial precesses designed to manage these interests will foster a sustainable and efficient publishing system, which will benefit academic societies, journal editors, authors, research funders, readers and publishers. This conference followed our intention to spread out our tasks and conclusions established at SWEP 2016 described in “Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Journals”, published in Croatian Medical Journal in December of 2016, a lot of biomedical journals accepted as official document and included in their Instructions for authors in journals which edited and printed (3, 4). This year, at SWEP 2018, active participation have taken by editors of the journals: Medical Archives, Acta Informatica Medica, Materia Socio-Medica, Croatian Medical Journal, Psichiatria Danubina, Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, Medicinski Glasnik, Acta Medica Saliniana, Medicinski Zurnal, Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, etc. The Seminar SWEP 2018 gathered prominent editors of biomedical journals, and also, distinguished professors and scientists who are interesting in the field of Science editing and publishing (A-BT). The aim of the meeting is to provide fundamental help to PhD students in their PhD thesis, because we all hope that their current topics in the field of scientific publishing will at least be a road sign, how to act, and what to avoid. Our desire is that these meetings become a tradition, and promote scientific excellence, as the only weapon in the hands of science in the modern world. The tendency towards scientific publication should be a universal idea, a way of communication, and the instillation of this tendency to young colleagues, should be the goal of every professor and academic person. Even when many say that science does not pay off, that it is a hard-laboring job, which ultimately is in the end gets recognized, the obligation of this meeting is evidence to all participants, that it is quite worth it, because of personal satisfaction, what essentially cannot be bought, and what essentially does not have a price. SWEP 2018 is one of the contributors to the development of science in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, and both the region and the Europe.
  52 in total

1.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.

Authors:  J E Hirsch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Ghost writing initiated by commercial companies.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Open access publication is growing in importance.

Authors:  Dana J Lawrence
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2005-09

4.  How to assess and improve quality of medical education: lessons learned from Faculty of Medicine in Sarajevo.

Authors:  Izet Masić; Ahmed Novo; Sejla Deljković; Ibrahim Omerhodzić; Alisa Piralić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.363

5.  Quality assessment of medical education and use of information technology.

Authors:  Izet Masic; Damir Ciric; Artan Pulja; Igor Kulasin; Haris Pandza
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2009

6.  From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Ash Paul
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Working memory capacity and a notorious brain teaser: the case of the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Authors:  Wim De Neys; Niki Verschueren
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2006

Review 8.  Globalization and perinatal medicine--how do we respond?

Authors:  Asim Kurjak; Gian Carlo Di Renzo; Milan Stanojevic
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2010-04

9.  Ten simple rules for making good oral presentations.

Authors:  Philip E Bourne
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-04-27       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Ten simple rules for a good poster presentation.

Authors:  Thomas C Erren; Philip E Bourne
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  10 in total

1.  Unethical Behaviors of Authors Who Published Papers in the Biomedical Journals Became a Global Problem.

Authors:  Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2020-02

Review 2.  Evaluation of Published Preclinical Experimental Studies in Medicine: Methodology Issues.

Authors:  Slobodan M Jankovic; Belma Kapo; Aziz Sukalo; Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2019-10

3.  Predatory Journals and Publishers - Dilemmas: How to Assess it and How to Avoid it?

Authors:  Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2021-10

4.  Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices.

Authors:  Izet Masic; Slobodan M Jankovic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2021-08

5.  On the Occasion of the Symposium "Scientometry, Citation, Plagiarism and Predatory in Scientific Publishing", Sarajevo, 2021.

Authors:  Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2021-12

6.  Instead of the Letter to the Editor-Dilemma: Is a New Form of Blackmail Emerging in the World of Scientific Journals Publishing?

Authors:  Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2022-06

7.  Evaluation of Preclinical and Clinical Studies Published in Medical Journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Methodology Issues.

Authors:  Slobodan M Jankovic; Izet Masic
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2020-03

8.  On Occasion of Ten Years Anniversary of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina: 2009-2019.

Authors:  Izet Masic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2019-12

9.  Comparative Analysis of Web of Science and Pubmed Indexed Medical Journals Published in Former Yugoslav Countries.

Authors:  Izet Masic; Slobodan M Jankovic
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2020-08

10.  Guidelines for Editing Biomedical Journals: Recommended by Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Authors:  Izet Masic; Slobodan M Jankovic; Asim Kurjak; Doncho M Donev; Muharem Zildzic; Osman Sinanovic; Izet Hozo; Snjezana Milicevic; Sefik Hasukic; Emir Mujanovic; Kenan Arnautovic; Senaid Trnacevic; Enisa Mesic; Mirza Biscevic; Mustafa Sefic; Vjekoslav Gerc; Abdulah Kucukalic; Zlatko Hrgovic; Jacob Bergsland; Mirko Grujic
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2020-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.