JavaScript NENÍ povolen !

Background: There is great need to improve editing of medical journals, both on regional and global level. Objective: The aim of our article was to establish main principles of editing biomedical scientific journals based on evidence found through systematic search of scientific literature. Methods: The evidence for writing this Guideline was systematically searched for during June 2020 in the PUBMED and GOOGLE SCHOLAR databases. The inclusion criteria were: original studies, systematic reviews, invited expert opinions, guidelines and editorials. The exclusion criteria were narrative reviews and un-invited opinion articles. Results: In total 11 recommendations were made, based mostly on A and B class of evidence. The editors should educate potential authors and instruct them how to structure their manuscript, how to write every segment of the manuscript, and take care about correct use of statistical tests. Plagiarism detection softwares should be used regularly, and statistical and technical editing should be rigorous and thorough. International standards of reporting specific types of studies should be followed, and principles of ethical and responsible behaviour of editors, reviewers and authors should be published on the journal’s web site. Conclusion: Evidence-based principles of editing biomedical scientific journals should be followed by chief editors of the journals as a prerequisite of the journals’ quality improvement.

Článek

Using mixed method approach in measuring effects of training in firms: Case study of the European Social Fund support

Evaluation and program planning. 2019 ; 73 (-) : 146-155. [pub] 20181226

Eval Program Plann
ISSN 1873-7870
Medvik
Zdroj

Public support of training in firms corresponds to the long-term importance of the quality of human capital in the competitiveness of firms and nations. Thus, the EU supports such training via the European Social Fund (ESF). The evaluation community evaluates the support by using either qualitative or quantitative methods. The simultaneous application of these two approaches is rare. The purpose of this paper is to combine quantitative (counterfactual impact evaluation) and qualitative (qualitative comparative analysis) methods in order to fill the methodological gap. Based on the combination of both approaches, it explores their strengths, complementarity and disadvantages to evaluate public support for employee training in the Czech Republic. The combination of methods makes it possible to identify not only the impacts but also their causes. Linking the ESF support to corporate competitiveness is crucial for demonstrating the effectiveness of public spending.