A large portion of market research essentially revolves around making a prediction and this is no more apparent than in political research.
How to make good predictions has led us to the more specific question of how to predict an election. Lightspeed's award-winning Research Innovator, Alex Wheatley, provides illustrations of the when, how and what of methods to best armour yourself to make such predictions. SlideShare Explore Search You. Submit Search. Successfully reported this slideshow. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime. Upcoming SlideShare.
The Heart in Conflict
Like this presentation? Why not share! Celebrating Innovation in Marketing Embed Size px. Some of the donors had the potential to gain from their Clinton connections.
Issue 79: Conflicts of the Heart
The foundation also set up a Canadian subsidiary that effectively shielded some donors from disclosure requirements. An article in The Wall Street Journal this month raised questions about a financial commitment that the Clinton Foundation made to a for-profit company run by politically connected close friends.
Some of these issues surfaced during Mrs. The corrective would appear to be to follow Mr. The current president, Donna E. Shalala, a respected former cabinet member and university president, has not said whether she will stay on past this year. To be sure, Donald J. Clinicians without any scientific experience to write about a particular subject? The New England Journal of Medicine had followed a similar policy with a previous editors for good reasons, 20 but currently seems to pursue a more flexible policy.
Reviewers are peers with particular knowledge in the field of the submitted work.
Editors must assure that their profile in their database properly reflects their experience and competence. When invited they should specifically be asked—as the European Heart Journal does—about potential financial, but also about personal and intellectual conflicts that may inappropriately influence their assessment. If so, they should refrain from accepting the invitation or—in uncertain situations—openly declare their potential conflicts allowing editors to take these into account when deciding.
The peer review process is more reliable, if three to four reviewers provide their assessment rather than one to two. Thus, in order to obtain a balanced assessment of submitted work, editors should invite an appropriate number of reviewers plus—if the work is seriously considered—a statistical reviewer. This process, although less than perfect, is the best way to provide a revised manuscript in which unbalanced and biased statements are corrected and proper statistical analysis provided.
Editors alike have interest that may inappropriately influence their decisions and they must be aware of it. If there are conflicts, a consulting editor should handle the manuscript in question, as is common practice in the European Heart Journal and this fact should be made transparent for the readers in the publication. Indeed, in highly competitive fields authors are often pushed to submit preliminary findings that are often later falsified.
We have to remember that the road to evidence is a bumpy one 22 and too much enthusiasm early on may mislead readers and the scientific process at large.
The scientific process and publishing practice are surrounded by numerous conflicts of authors, reviewers, and editors. Nevertheless, authors, reviewers, and editors must be aware of their own conflicts and try to minimize their influence on their work. Proper peer review, although not perfect, is currently to best tool to minimize bias, to assure a balanced presentation of results and appropriate statistical analysis.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of other editors of the European Heart Journal or the European Society of Cardiology. This work was not funded by any agency or any company.
The author of this ViewPoint is proud to acknowledge that he has worked with almost all pharmaceutical and device companies over the last decades. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search.
- Head or Heart: The Conflicts of Political Polling.
- Schokomayopompadour 2 La vie en rose: Mit Bildern von Sonja Shenouda (German Edition);
- Buried Secrets.
Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents.
Conflicts of interest prevalent among clinical practice guideline producers
A historical vignette. Conflicts in the old days.
Modern times. On a for-profit mission. Discovery first. Judgment and bias.
Conflict of interest statements. Reverse bias. Conflicts and the peer review process. Conflicts of interest and the truth of scientific discovery: an editor's perspective Thomas F. Editorial Office.
- What to Do When Your Mind and Heart are in Conflict.
- Space Scout: The Robot King.
- The Right Bed?: Your Bed or Mine? / Cold Case, Hot Bodies / A Breath Away (Mills & Boon By Request) (The Wrong Bed, Book 42)?
- Conflicts of the Heart by Elora Jade on Spotify!
- The Production Assistants Pocket Handbook?
- 88 Color Paintings of Theodore Rousseau (Pierre Étienne Théodore) - French Barbizon School Painter (April 15, 1812 - December 22, 1867).
Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Citation.
More by Elora Jade
Permissions Icon Permissions. Modern times When Andreas R. Discovery first What do we learn from these stories? Judgment and bias It is undisputable that the scientific process is influenced by our favourite hypothesis on which we often built our careers , by hopes we are all prone to confirmation bias and interests, be they financial, professional or personal in nature.
Conflict of interest statements What do we gain then with conflict of interest statements at the beginning of each lecture, each talk, and as footnotes in every publication? Reverse bias So, what do we really learn from conflict statements? Reviewers Reviewers are peers with particular knowledge in the field of the submitted work. Conflicted editors Editors alike have interest that may inappropriately influence their decisions and they must be aware of it. Conclusions The scientific process and publishing practice are surrounded by numerous conflicts of authors, reviewers, and editors.