Institution
PLOS
Archive•San Francisco, California, United States•
About: PLOS is a archive organization based out in San Francisco, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Transparency (behavior) & MEDLINE. The organization has 84 authors who have published 157 publications receiving 3311 citations. The organization is also known as: PLOS & PLoS.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Ottawa1, University of Ioannina2, University of Bern3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4, PLOS5, University of Bristol6, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute7, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston8, University of Western Ontario9, Erasmus University Rotterdam10, Cancer Care Ontario11, McGill University12, Harvard University13
TL;DR: The STREGA recommendations are presented, which are aimed at improving the reporting of genetic association studies and are designed to improve the quality of studies.
Abstract: Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.
766 citations
••
University of Ottawa1, Tufts University2, University of Ioannina3, Cochrane Collaboration4, University of Bern5, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention6, PLOS7, University of Bristol8, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center9, Robarts Research Institute10, University of Western Ontario11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, Cancer Care Ontario13, McGill University14, Harvard University15
TL;DR: The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.
Abstract: Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.
344 citations
••
TL;DR: It is recommended that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier.
Abstract: In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.
201 citations
••
PLOS1
TL;DR: This Public Health article proposes that WHO takes the lead in championing the goal of "Universal access to essential health-care information by 2015" or "Health Information for All".
193 citations
••
University of Ottawa1, Medical Research Council2, Tufts University3, University of Ioannina4, University of Freiburg5, University of Bern6, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention7, PLOS8, University of Bristol9, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center10, University of Western Ontario11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, Cancer Care Ontario13, McGill University14, Harvard University15
TL;DR: The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.
Abstract: Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.
176 citations
Authors
Showing all 84 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Mark Patterson | 39 | 116 | 4659 |
Roland G. Roberts | 38 | 112 | 6905 |
Gavin Yamey | 32 | 285 | 7563 |
Martin Fenner | 29 | 105 | 3423 |
Cameron Neylon | 26 | 93 | 2648 |
Virginia Barbour | 26 | 86 | 32494 |
Nonia Pariente | 20 | 26 | 1183 |
Margaret A. Winker | 19 | 72 | 1868 |
Larry Peiperl | 19 | 43 | 1279 |
Catriona J. MacCallum | 15 | 34 | 1719 |
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz | 14 | 37 | 777 |
Theodora Bloom | 14 | 33 | 1729 |
Veronique Kiermer | 13 | 38 | 2437 |
Vivian Siegel | 13 | 39 | 1396 |
Liza Gross | 12 | 104 | 583 |