Arquivo da categoria: Science

Redação científica e a qualidade dos artigos: em busca de maior impacto

J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. vol.23 no.4 São Paulo Dec. 2011

Ana Manhani Cáceres; Juliana Perina Gândara; Marina Leite Puglisi*


RESUMO

Tendo em vista a constante preocupação de cientistas e editores com a qualidade da escrita científica, o objetivo deste artigo foi apresentar alguns tópicos acerca da estrutura recomendada para a publicação em periódicos revisados por pares. Detalhamos os pontos-chave das seções tradicionais de artigos originais e propusemos dois materiais que podem ser úteis à redação científica: um roteiro pontual para elaborar as principais ideias do artigo; e um quadro com exemplos de estruturas indesejáveis e desejáveis na redação científica.

Descritores: Redação; Publicações científicas e técnicas; Disseminação de informação, métodos; Competência em informação; Ciência da informação


LEIA O ARTIGO NA ÍNTEGRA

Fonte da imagem: http://mudedeatituteeemagreca.blogspot.com.br/2010/02/baixar-livro-gratis.html

Anúncios

Writing scientific articles like a native English speaker: top ten tips for Portuguese speakers

Can you identify a single colleague who has not had a manuscript returned with the comment “needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker”? Many researchers receive this response even after translation or revision by an official translator or a native English-speaking coauthor. Over the past four years, while conducting my doctoral, and now my postdoctoral, work here in Brazil, I have been asked to both translate and help revise numerous manuscripts for my fellow Brazilian researchers. However, despite being a native English speaker and a researcher, I have found these tasks to be quite stressful at times. The truth is, just like it is one thing to write in Portuguese and another to write well in Portuguese, the same applies to writing well in English. Furthermore, not every native English speaker who writes well in English can write well for the scientific literature. Scientific English writing has its own style and rhythm, such as the use of passive voice. Passive voice is considered poor English in most forms of writing (news, novels, blogs, etc.) outside of science. The most recent version of Microsoft Office Word will even highlight passive voice as poor grammar and ask you if you want to rephrase. However, the use of passive voice is acceptable and even encouraged in some scientific writing.

Although you would expect revising an already translated paper would take less time than translating an entire manuscript, I eventually came to prefer translation. Revisions tend to take me twice as long. Online translators may be partly to blame for this phenomenon. Not only did I spend hours being frustrated by confusing phrases resulting from simple mistakes, but I also spent the majority of my time fixing the same mistakes over and over again.

For this reason, I decided to assemble a compilation of the 10 most common “errors” made by native Portuguese speakers when writing scientific papers in English. I put “errors” in quotes because many of the following tips are just that: tips, or dicas. They do not always refer to incorrect English, but rather to poor English, and they are not necessarily absolute rules. Most of these are common mistakes or poor writing habits that affect even native English speakers, so correcting them before submitting your manuscript can give you an advantage with the reviewers. It may even help you to avoid the dreaded “needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker”.

Leia o artigo na íntegra

Como saber se um artigo científico é bom?

pesquisa

Na busca de uma constante atualização científica recorremos às bases de dados e baixamos artigos científicos. Em alguns casos, temos acesso apenas ao resumo e pagamos para obter o texto na íntegra. Com a certeza de que aquele artigo será útil, que foi uma pesquisa bem conduzida e que cumpriu todos os pré-requisitos para evitar viéses, fazemos o esforço de adquiri-lo e começamos a lê-lo avidamente até percebermos que jogamos nosso tempo e dinheiro no lixo! Mas como saber se um artigo científico é bom? Será que acreditar na integridade do periódico é suficiente?

Visando nos ajudar nesta àrdua tarefa de avaliar artigos, uma série de guias tem sido desenvolvidos. Cada um deles aborda um tipo de estudo e suas peculliaridades. No caso dos ensaios clínicos (clinical trials), o CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) é uma boa ferramenta para verificar se a evidência está adequadamente construída. Além disso, contém uma lista de itens que os pesquisadores devem estar atentos para relatar adequadamente como o ensaio clínico foi desenhado, analisado e interpretado.

No site do CONSORT GROUP o leitor encontra maiores informações e todos os itens do checklist.

Em breve abordaremos os guias desenvolvidos para outros tipos de estudo.

Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise

Com o crescimento do número de pesquisas na área de disfagia, cresce também a necessidade de compararmos os estudos e as intervenções buscando medidas resumo que facilitem a nossa compreensão sobre o melhor tipo de intervenção para o nosso paciente. Para isso, o uso de metodologias como a revisão sistemática possibilita a organização da produção científica em determinado tema com o menor número de viéses possível. No Brasil, o Centro Cochrane organiza uma série de cursos para quem procura capacitação nesta metodologia.

O Curso de Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise on-line em cooperação com a Escola Paulista de Medicina é gratuito e pode ser acessado por este site.

Evidence-based systematic review: Oropharyngeal dysphagia behavioral treatments. Part V-Applications for clinicians and researchers

Karen Wheeler-Hegland, PhD; Tobi Frymark, MA; Tracy Schooling, MA; Daniel McCabe, DMA; John Ashford, PhD; Robert Mullen, MPH; Carol Smith Hammond, PhD; Nan Musson, MA

JRRD, Volume 46 Number 2, 2009, Pages 215 — 222

Abstract —

Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves the integration of three essential principles: (1) the current best available research, (2) the clinician’s experience and expertise, and (3) the patient’s values and preferences. This report is the last in a series that presents the culmination of a collaborative effort between the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine the state of the evidence on seven behavioral swallowing interventions. This article addresses how speech-language pathologists treating individuals with oropharyngeal dysphagia can incorporate EBP into their clinical decision-making process. A fictitious patient scenario is presented and discussed as an example of the clinical application of the findings from the three systematic reviews in this series on evidence for the use of behavioral swallowing interventions. Also, recommendations for researchers studying dysphagia treatment are discussed, with the overall goal of facilitating the generation of a stronger evidence base for clinicians.

LEIA O ARTIGO NA ÍNTEGRA

Evidence-based systematic review: Oropharyngeal dysphagia behavioral treatments. Part III-Impact of dysphagia treatments on populations with neurological disorders

John Ashford, PhD; Daniel McCabe, DMA; Karen Wheeler-Hegland, PhD; Tobi Frymark, MA; Robert Mullen, MPH; Nan Musson, MA; Tracy Schooling, MA; Carol Smith Hammond, PhD

JRRD, Volume 46 Number 2, 2009, Pages 195 — 204

Abstract —

This evidence-based systematic review (EBSR) is part of a series of reviews examining the state of the research regarding behavioral interventions for dysphagia. This EBSR focuses primarily on dysphagia secondary to neurological disorders (e.g., brain injury, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia). The seven behavioral treatments investigated were three postural interventions (side lying, chin tuck, and head rotation) and four swallowing maneuvers (effortful swallow, Mendelsohn, supraglottic swallow, and super-supraglottic swallow). We systematically searched the dysphagia literature from March 2007 to April 2008 using 14 electronic databases. Seven studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were evaluated for methodological quality and stage of research. Of the included studies, only two were judged to be efficacy research; the remaining five were considered exploratory. Methodological quality of studies ranged from one to seven out of eight possible quality markers. Five of seven treatment interventions were addressed by at least one study. No studies were found to address the effortful swallow or the super-supraglottic swallow. Currently, limited evidence from seven studies shows the potential effects of dysphagia behavioral interventions for select groups of individuals with neurologically induced dysphagia. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these and the remaining interventions with various populations with neurological disorders.

LEIA O ARTIGO NA ÍNTEGRA

Evidence-based systematic review: Oropharyngeal dysphagia behavioral treatments. Part II-Impact of dysphagia treatment on normal swallow function

Karen Wheeler-Hegland, PhD; John Ashford, PhD; Tobi Frymark, MA; Daniel McCabe, DMA; Robert Mullen, MPH; Nan Musson, MA; Carol Smith Hammond, PhD; Tracy Schooling, MA

JRRD, Volume 46 Number 2, 2009, Pages 185 — 194

Abstract —

This article is the second in a series of evidence-based systematic reviews. Data reported cover the impact of dysphagia behavioral interventions on swallow physiology in healthy adults. The behavioral treatments investigated were three postural interventions-side lying, chin tuck, and head rotation-and four swallowing maneuvers-effortful swallow, the Mendelsohn maneuver, supraglottic swallow, and super-supraglottic swallow. A systematic search of the dysphagia litera-ture was conducted in 14 electronic databases. Seventeen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for methodological quality with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s levels-of-evidence scheme and were characterized by research stage (i.e., exploratory, efficacy, effectiveness, cost-benefit/public policy research). Effect sizes were calculated when possible. All studies were exploratory research ranging from two to five of seven possible quality markers. The majority of studies (8 of 17) investigated effortful swallow. Three studies examined the Mendelsohn maneuver, chin tuck, supraglottic swallow, and super-supraglottic swallow and two studies addressed head rotation. No study addressed side lying. For nondisordered populations, the existing evidence demonstrates differential effects of postural changes and maneuvers on swallowing physiology. Some effects reinforced existing recommendations for the applications of the interventions, while others suggested new ways that the treatments may impact swallow function. Avenues for future research are suggested.

LEIA O ARTIGO NA ÍNTEGRA