English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In 2012, a joint venture of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the American Epilepsy Society (AES) launched the First Joint AES/ILAE Translational Workshop (London, United Kingdom) to optimize preclinical epilepsy research. The participants, a group of 50 international experts involved in preclinical or clinical epilepsy research and therapy development, from academia, industry, or funding organizations, as well as patient representatives, identified a number of issues that could improve the infrastructure and accelerate and optimize the translation of preclinical epilepsy research findings into clinically relevant discoveries. Among the top five priority action items was to formulate a system to combat publication bias and to facilitate publication of negative studies. The incentive behind advocating for publication of negative studies has been to reduce the publication bias created by the higher submission and acceptance publication rates of articles that report novel positive findings, which are perceived as more likely to increase the citations from and impact factors of journals. Having equal access to both negative and positive studies, but also to confirmatory or nonconfirmatory studies, would filter out “promising” findings that would eventually fail to translate or replicate when tested in the clinic or in another preclinical model. The costs of failure to confirm a drug’s effect or to identify toxicities early on that would ultimately halt drug development have been enormous. Such drug failures multiply several fold the costs of bringing one approved drug to the market, which is typically in the range of several hundreds of millions of dollars. Even in research areas that do not target therapy development, preferential publication of positive studies could mislead the way scientific findings are interpreted and misinform the scientific community and funders about future research directions. Epilepsia Open was in part created to address publication bias in clinical and basic science epilepsy-related research. We strive to promote publications that enhance the quality and transparency of epilepsy research findings and offer objective interpretations of the presented data. We place equal gravity on both negative and positive studies, but also on novel and confirmatory studies, as long as they are reported in a scientifically rigorous and unbiased manner (see Information for Authors), and could influence decisions on the direction of future research, clinical practice, or therapy discovery. We recognize that research findings may not always tell a perfect story and that acknowledging these limitations or alternate interpretations is paramount to directing future research toward the right paths. We therefore encourage discussion of limitations, alternate interpretations, and clinical relevance in all research articles submitted to our journal (see Information for Authors). Aristea S. Galanopoulou, Epilepsia Open Editor in Chief Dieter Schmidt, Epilepsia Open Editor in Chief GaryW. Mathern, Epilepsia Open Editor in Chief XuefengWang, Epilepsia Open Editor in Chief

Minimizing publication bias in Epilepsia Open : Negative or confirmatory studies and preliminary reports