Abstract: Open access to information in medical science and adequate reporting of clinical trials may allow investigators and editors to recognize bias in study designs and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Unfortunately, most of clinical trials are very expensive and are often supported by industries that may have financial reasons to hide or partially disclose results. However, investigators and editors have a greater interest in publishing results that can immediately change clinical practice rather than negative results, thus contributing to facilitate publication biases. Several years ago, legislation in several countries mandated the registration of clinical trials as an effective means of promoting information access and full transparency in medical research. However, comprehensive registers have not been adequately supported by law, particularly in Europe, where legislation has ironically contributed to fragmented research, and dampened its competitiveness and productivity. In this context, appropriate strategies help to protect the independence of academic research and ensure full transparency in medical science.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 1/16/2009 04:37:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
