Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors’ selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work. La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La farmacia práctica se ha definido como «la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas sanitarios, el uso de los medicamentos y la atención al paciente». Así pues, los estudios sobre la farmacia práctica abarcan tanto elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la farmacia práctica clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación mediante revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina mediante la mejora de la calidad de los artículos publicados. Al igual que ha ocurrido en otras áreas sanitarias (medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de farmacia práctica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para debatir cómo las revistas podrían contribuir a fortalecer la farmacia práctica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se recogió en esta Declaracion de Granada, que comprende 18 recomendaciones agrupadas en 6 temas: el uso adecuado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, las revisiones por pares requeridas, la dispersión de revistas, un uso más eficaz y prudente de los indicadores bibliométricos de revistas y artículos y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de farmacia práctica más adecuada para presentar sus trabajos.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.217 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".