Editorial
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2010;120(1):2-2. doi:10.1172/JCI41795.
Abstract
The regular articles and technical advances published in this issue are an average of 9,050 words, with 8.4 display items (figures and tables). Do we always need so many words to convey a message? We think not. With this editorial, we issue a call for brief reports.
Authors
Ushma S. Neill
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2009. doi:10.1172/JCI40970.
Abstract
Physicians in the United States have a unique appreciation of the tremendous successes and even greater potential of our health care system, yet we also endure firsthand its woeful deficiencies. In the ongoing debate about how to improve the current health care structure in the United States, our individual voices have been all too quiet. No single health care organization, nor its spokesmen, speaks for the broad range of physicians’ opinions. Rather, doctors must make every effort, and indeed have an obligation, to speak forcefully as informed participants in this important process.
Authors
Jonathan A. Epstein, Laurence A. Turka, Morris Birnbaum, Gary Koretzky
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2009;119(9):2436-2437. doi:10.1172/JCI40681.
Abstract
When has an author been scooped? It sounds like a simple question, but in fact, as a recent editorial meeting unfolded, this issue became far more complex than I had thought.
Authors
Laurence A. Turka
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2009;119(6):1398-1398. doi:10.1172/JCI39701.
Abstract
When US President Barack Obama declared in his 2009 inaugural address, “We will restore science to its rightful place,” many applauded. The US has led the world in research, innovation, and education in the medical sciences. The National Science Foundation, the NIH, and other government organizations involved in scientific investigations are the primary engines that have fueled this excellence over the past half century. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to assume that preeminence, or even excellence, will persist without attention and cultivation.
Authors
Jonathan A. Epstein
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2009;119(5):1057-1057. doi:10.1172/JCI39392.
Abstract
In the two years that I have been Editor in Chief of the JCI, the editors and I have sent approximately 2,500 papers for external review. The referee reports that we’ve received have spanned the spectrum from incredibly insightful to completely unhelpful. Together with a longer piece immediately following this editorial, I would like to reflect on what I think makes a good review.
Authors
Laurence A. Turka
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2009;119(3):424-424. doi:10.1172/JCI38802.
Abstract
An inauspicious start to 2009, unfortunately. This issue may seem a little thinner than others we’ve recently published, as 4 articles that were previously accepted and scheduled for publication in this issue will not appear. We continue to screen all figures from accepted manuscripts, and we continue to find irregularities. In several cases, the alterations in the figures led to the discovery of some fundamental problems with the data. Many of the papers suffered from the same problems, and this led us to consider whether it was time to revisit some experimental basics.
Authors
Ushma S. Neill
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2008;118(11):3516-3516. doi:10.1172/JCI37695.
Abstract
Unfortunately, we seem to run article amendments (corrections, errata, retractions, addenda) in every issue these days. In the current issue, we have a correction and a retraction — both coming after intensive investigations and peculiar situations we hadn’t encountered before.
Authors
Ushma S. Neill, Laurence A. Turka
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2008;118(9):2988-2988. doi:10.1172/JCI37035.
Abstract
In the midst of the monumentally important 2008 presidential election, information about the candidates’ proposals for biomedical research is notably absent. Why is this the case, and more importantly, what can be done about it?
Authors
Laurence A. Turka
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2008;118(7):2368-2368. doi:10.1172/JCI36371.
Abstract
The academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagiarism, and submitting the “minimal publishable unit.” Are these ethical gray areas, or true transgressions?
Authors
Ushma S. Neill
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2008;118(3):822-822. doi:10.1172/JCI35214.
Abstract
While the JCI was originally conceived as a journal that would integrate various scientific approaches to the examination of human physiology and pathophysiology, we now find many of its pages filled with animal models of human disease. Is this a good thing?
Authors
Laurence A. Turka
No posts were found with this tag.
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)