Discussion Sections Of Articles Research Articles

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

EDITORIAL

Ecology Letters has established its leading role in publishing the finest and most exciting work in ecology. This is evidenced by our steady increase in submissions to over 1000/year and by our ISI Journal Citation Index to 7.609 for 2006, making us the highest impact journal publishing original research in ecology. Ecology Letters reaches over 7500 institutions worldwide and in 2006 over 250 000 articles were downloaded. In this Editorial, I will discuss three factors that have led to the success of Ecology Letters, and provide important guidelines for increasing the chance that your manuscript is externally reviewed and accepted for publication in our journal. Ecology Letters publishes the most novel research of general importance in the ecological, evolutionary and environmental sciences. Novelty is the excitement generated by how the research transforms the way we think about an important scientific question. Manuscripts submitted to Ecology Letters are also assessed for their general applicability to other species and systems, and for their interest to a range of ecologists. Providing this unique service for both authors and readers necessitates high selectivity, and as we expect a continued increase in submissions in 2007–2008, we will increase our page numbers so that we can continue to publish as many of the finest manuscripts as possible. Ecology Letters recognizes that the growth in both new publications and the cumulative published knowledge in ecology require articles to keep readers informed of the latest, most important trends. Our Ideas and Perspectives provide a means to formally present new, critical topics that might otherwise be neglected in article discussion sections, or principally exposed to more specialized audiences in books or edited volumes. Our Reviews and Syntheses present learned insights into particularly active areas of ecology, including probing literature reviews and where possible, meta-analyses. The limited page space for these two sections means that publication is very competitive, but potential authors should not hesitate to contact either Nicholas Gotelli (ngotelli@uvm.edu) or Jonathan Chase (el.reviews@biology2.wustl.edu) for proposals of I&Ps and R&Ss, respectively. Ecology Letters is the only ecology journal ensuring that every decision is made within published time limits. Our current expected time from submission to a first decision is 17.8 days, and papers are typically published on-line 1 month following acceptance. The rigour of our review process and the pressure it puts on referees and editors means that we can only review a limited number of manuscripts submitted to our journal. Most manuscripts not accepted are, in fact, excellent studies, but did not meet the criteria given limited page space – rejection with or without review from Ecology Letters should be taken in this light. As described below, the effort an author puts into the preparation of a manuscript and its actual submission, could make a difference in how it is perceived by editors and reviewers. We strive to provide a fair assessment for all manuscripts, with the intention that our decision is based on the novelty and generality criteria described above. Evaluating these criteria requires two elements. First, the manuscript must be written so as to clearly and accurately communicate all parts of the study. It is unfortunately common that reviewers have difficulty assessing manuscripts for lack of clarity and that, frustrated, cannot provide a quality review and often refuse to assess a resubmission. Secondly, the submission materials must be complete and manuscript lengths respected as per our website (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=1461-023X&site=1). Of central importance is establishing the novelty and generality of the study in the cover letter. We recommend a short exposé of up to one page with citations describing how the study clearly stands apart in its novelty from, past research (including that by the authors). Any recent publications (including those in press and submitted to other journals) by the authors relating to the submission need to be provided as supplementary files. Ecology Letters’ success reflects a collective commitment in which authors send us their finest and most exciting research, and editors and reviewers provide rapid and thorough evaluation. This is what motivates us to produce the fastest and most widely read articles in ecology.

Consensual qualitative research: An update.

The authors reviewed the application of consensual qualitative research (CQR) in 27 studies published since the method's introduction to the field in 1997 by C. E. Hill, B. J. Thompson, and E. N. Williams (1997). After first describing the core components and the philosophical underpinnings of CQR, the authors examined how it has been applied in terms of the consensus process, biases, research teams, data collection, data analysis, and writing up the results and discussion sections of articles. On the basis of problems that have arisen in each of these areas, the authors made recommendations for modifications of the method. The authors concluded that CQR is a viable qualitative method and suggest several ideas for research on the method itself.

Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines

The Discussion sections of 30 social science Research Articles, 10 each from the disciplines of history, political science and sociology, were analyzed according to a modified version of the moves, or communicative categories, presented in previous studies. It was found that, although there were fundamental similarities to the natural sciences, social science Discussion sections also displayed some distinctive features. History texts were particularly distinctive, and of the three disciplines bore the least resemblance to those of the natural sciences. It is suggested that this distinctiveness is sufficient to justify the idea of a social science subgenre of the Research Article genre and that data of this kind are needed if academic reading and writing materials are to be developed that are sensitive to the structural features of academic texts and in particular to the ways in which such features vary according to discipline.