137 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Feb 2021
  3. Jan 2021
    1. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

      Etika untuk Mitra Bestari

    2. The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study. The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct. The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

      Poin-poin yang mejadi tolok ukur mitra bestari dalam melakukan review

    3. to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal

      Tujuan dari peninjauan sejawat (peer-review) adalah mengetahui kekuatan dan kelemahan naskah sehingga dapat dilakukan peningkatan mutu.

    4. Authorship

      semua orang yang berkontribusi secara substansial terhadap proses perencanaan, pengumpulan data, interpretasi hasil maupun penulisan dan merevisi naskah secara kritis dan menyetujui manuskrip versi akhir dan setuju untuk bertanggung jawab atas semua aspek pekerjaan. Setiap orang yang memenuhi kriteria pertama harus diizinkan berpartisipasi dalam penyusunan dan persetujuan manuskrip versi final (ICMJE 2017). Penulis pertama haruslah seseorang yang berkontribusi paling banyak.


    5. Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements

      Demikian juga dengan penggunaan hewan sebayak objek kajian, harus mengikuti standar etika yang berlaku (Helsinki).

    6. Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself

      Seminimal mungkin, penulis harus menyampaikan keputusan etik dari komisi etik dan lebih ideal lagi jika menyertakan surat keputusan bebas etiknya.

    7. For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed

      Jika tidak memungkinkan untuk diperoleh hasil review etik, penulis seharusnya secara explisit menjelaskan apakah pelaksanaan kajian sesuai dengan Deklarasi Helsinki atau mereka memiliki pandangan lain.

    8. Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues

      Penulis harus menyertakan keterangan bebas review yang diterbitkan oleh komisi etik penelitian kesehatan.

    9. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific misconduct

      Untuk mencapai kualitas terbaik pada ilmu pengetahuan yang diterbitkan, kajian harus terbebas dari permasalahan etika tersebut

  4. Dec 2020
    1. Stuaert Rtchie [@StuartJRitchie] (2020) This encapsulates the problem nicely. Sure, there’s a paper. But actually read it & what do you find? p-values mostly juuuust under .05 (a red flag) and a sample size that’s FAR less than “25m”. If you think this is in any way compelling evidence, you’ve totally been sold a pup. Twitter. Retrieved from:https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1305963050302877697

    1. Following the model of open-source software, we can enter our ideas and expressions into public discourse

      This also isn't a well-aligned argument. Articles published in a for-profit journal are entered into the public discourse (although obviously not into the public domain). Unless public means "without cost", which I don't think it does.

      We might want to broaden this to include open-access, which is specific to publication models.

  5. Nov 2020
  6. Oct 2020
  7. Sep 2020
  8. Aug 2020
    1. If a prominent magazine like The Lancet is publishing such rubbish, who is to say smaller and less well financed magazines aren’t doing the same on a langer scale?

  9. Jul 2020
    1. "that text has been removed from the official version on the Apache site." This itself is also not good. If you post "official" records but then quietly edit them over time, I have no choice but to assume bad faith in all the records I'm shown by you. Why should I believe anything Apache board members claim was "minuted" but which in fact it turns out they might have just edited into their records days, weeks or years later? One of the things I particularly watch for in modern news media (where no physical artefact captures whatever "mistakes" are published as once happened with newspapers) is whether when they inevitably correct a mistake they _acknowledge_ that or they instead just silently change things.
  10. Jun 2020
  11. May 2020
  12. Apr 2020