Authors:Santosh Nanda, Ariel Rivas, William Trochim, and J. Deshler
The emphasis of validity as a publication content was investigated in dissertations and journal articles. The time of first publication, longitudinal publication profile, ratio of articles to dissertations, and time lag between dissertations and articles emphasizing validity were compared within and among various fields. A three-decade gap separated the first field adopting validity-related contents in its dissertations from the latest fields that did so. The longitudinal data suggested three groups of fields (Agricultural Sciences, Applied Sciences and Social Sciences) which showed consistent differences among groups and consistent similarities within groups in their emphasis on validity-related content. Adoption of validity-related content in dissertations always preceded adoption of validity-related content in journal articles. On average, less than 4% of journal articles included validity-related content across fields. These findings support the hypothesis that validity has been introduced and disseminated within fields following patterns predicted by diffusion of innovations theory. It is argued that this pattern is inconsistent with an efficient and interdisciplinary utilization of available knowledge. Policy recommendations are made for developing strategic communication and education programs for academicians and journal reviewers.
point, remifentanil, did not have a meta-analysis. The use of remifentanil only in acute pain, its intravenous administration, and rapid onset and short duration of action are factors that have led to convincing results (Yarmush et al. 1997 ), and the
researchers in this field. After the 1980s, Edwards and Steinglass ( 1995 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies of family-involved therapy for alcoholism. They concluded that once the drinker enters treatment, family-involved treatment is marginally more
-existent phenomena (Ioannidis 2005 , 2008b ; Feigenbaum and Levy 1996 ; Song et al. 2010 ). In meta-analysis, publication bias can in part be corrected by assuming that negative results are simply never written up, and are left lying in scientists’ drawers
systematic review and meta-analysis . Cancer Causes and Control 2011 22 8 1097 – 1110 10.1007/s10552-011-9785-9 .
Lewison , G . The publication of cancer research papers in high impact journals . Aslib
Fanelli , D . How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data . PLoS ONE 2009 4 5 e5738 10.1371/journal