Reply to “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published”

1. Bourne PE (2005) Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1: e57. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057 2. Science journals impact factors. Available: http://gezhi.org/wp-content/ uploads/2006/06/2005%20SCI.zip. Accessed 17 August 2007. 3. Issacs D, Fitzgerald D (1999) Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. Br Med J 319: 1618. 4. Chalmers I, Haynes B (1994) Reporting, updating and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Br Med J 309: 862–865. 5. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268: 2420–2425. 6. Altman DG (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. Br Med J 308: 283–284. 7. Altman DG (2002) Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287: 2765–2767. 8. Skrabanek P (1990) Nonsensus consensus. Lancet 335: 1446–1447. 9. Eddy DM (1990) Practice policies: Where do they come from? JAMA 263: 1265, 1269, 1272 passim. 10. Genuis SJ, Genuis SK (2006) Exploring the continuum: Medical information to effective clinical practice. Paper I. Towards aetiology-centred clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 12: 49–62. 11. Anon (1983) Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis. Lancet 1: 1273–1275. 12. Davidoff F (1999) In the teeth of the evidence: The curious case of evidence-based medicine. Mt Sinai J Med 66: 75–83. 13. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, et al. (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288: 321–333. 14. Chalmers I (2001) Invalid health information is potentially lethal. Br Med J 322: 998. Table 1. Impact Factors for Journals Referenced in This Essay Reference Journal Impact Factor [1] PLoS Comput Biol 0.224 [3] Br Med J 9.052 [5] JAMA 23.332 [8] Lancet 23.407 [10] J Eval Clin Pract 1.12 [12] Mt Sinai J Med 1.046 [15] J Med Ethics 1.312 [16] Nat Biotechnol 22.738 [17] Behav Brain Sci 9.885 [22] Perspect Biol Med .914 [24] Clin Pharmacol Ther 7.526 [25] Br J Psychiatry 4.956 [26] Biometrics 1.602 [29] Cortex 3.584 [30] Nutrition 2.064 [31] J Am Coll Cardiol 9.2 [32] Arch Opthamol 3.274 [33] Br J Sports Med 1.855 [34] Sci Eng Ethics .425 [36] Med Hypotheses .92 [37] J Neuroimmunol .824 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030190.t001 PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org September | Volume | Issue | e190 15. Skrabanek P (1990) Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints? J Med Ethics 16: 187–190. 16. Metz M (2002) Criticism preserves the vitality of science. Nat Biotechnol 20: 867. 17. Harnad S (1982) Editor peer commentary on peer review. Behav Brain Sci 5: 185–186. 18. Grouse LD (1982) Dealing with alleged fraud in medical research. JAMA 248: 1637–1638. 19. Forscher BK (1980) The role of the referee. Scholarly Publishing 11: 165–169. 20. Commoner B (1978) Peering at peer review. Hosp Practice 13: 25, 29. 21. Shand J (2000) Arguing well. London: Routledge. 22. Ingle DJ (1972) Fallacies and errors in the wonderlands of biology, medicine and Lewis Carroll. Perspect Biol Med 15: 254–281. 23. Glantz SA (1997) Primer of biostatistics. 4th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. 24. Bailar JC (1976) Bailar’s laws of data analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 20: 113–119. 25. White SJ (1979) Statistical errors in papers in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 135: 336–342. 26. O’Fallon JR, Dubey SD, Salsburg DS, Edmonson JH, Soffer A, et al. (1978) Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers? Biometrics 34: 687–695. 27. James NT (1996) Scientific method and raw data should be considered. Br Med J 313: 169–170. 28. Mainland D (1984) Statistical ritual in clinical journals: Is there a cure?—I. Br Med J 288: 841–843. 29. Klein DF (2002) Peer review and data access. Cortex 38: 412. 30. Meguid MM, Shenkin A (2003) Introduction: Nutritional supplements and the quest to improve human performance—The need for the strictest standards and rigor when reporting clinical trials. Nutrition 19: 955–956. 31. DeMaria AN (2002) Peer review: Better than the alternatives. J Am Coll Cardiol 40: 1017–1018. 32. DeBakey L (1990) Journal peer reviewing. Anonymity or disclosure? Arch Ophthalmol 108: 345–349. 33. Grosch EN (2003) Reviewer diligence? Br J Sports Med 37: 187. 34. Stamps AE (1997) Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review. Sci Eng Ethics 3: 85–98. 35. King DW, McDonald DD, Roderer NK (1981) Scientific journals in the United States. Stroudsburg (Pennsylvania): Hutchinson Ross. 36. Stehbens WE (1999) Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Med Hypotheses 52: 31–36. 37. Raine CS (2003) A reviewer’s lot is not a happy one. J Neuroimmunol 141: 1–2. 38. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MSeditors (1999) To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington (D.C.): National Academy Press. Citation: Grosch E (2007) Reply to ‘‘Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published’’. PLoS Comput Biol 3(9): e190. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030190 Copyright:  2007 Eric Grosch. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding. The author received no specific funding for this article. Competing interests. The author has declared that no competing interests exist. PLoS Computational Biology | www.ploscompbiol.org September | Volume | Issue | e190