Stimulated experience workshop

doi:10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00553

Journal of

eISSN: 2373-633X

Cancer Prevention & Current Research

Editorial Volume 15 Issue 3

Stimulated experience workshop

Jesus E Tatá Amoldoni

Sociedad Venezolana de Cirugía, Venezuela, South America

Correspondence: Jesus E Tatá Amoldoni, Sociedad Venezolana de Cirugía, Venezuela, South America

Received: June 28, 2024 | Published: June 28, 2024

Citation: Amoldoni JET. Stimulated experience workshop.J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2024;15(3):71. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00553

Download PDF

Editorial

The purpose of carrying out a research work must always be to obtain a new vision of a known or unknown topic; however, this purpose does not transcend the borders of our area of work, if it is not disseminated in the areas where it is really useful. This statement is the veiled reality of many of our daily jobs, where we are permanently facing changes that in some way can affect positive or negative results for the development of different specialties, with greater emphasis on the area of medicine.

Keeping a protocol in place and adhering to international consensus guidelines for the treatment of different pathologies allows us to speak the same language and understand each other when we want to consult express or disseminate an idea. Nowadays, due to the large number of means of dissemination, it is very easy to bring to light situations that routinely develop every day in areas that were previously reserved for the realization of experimentation protocols in different phases, which, once the results were obtained, were subjected to rigorous analysis in different ways. and then be able to be disclosed or published. This leads to the "raw" results of different studies arriving at the wrong time and in areas where they are not useful, causing a cascade of opinions and conclusions that distort the purpose and distance the original objectives of many research dynamics of different working groups.

The situation described above makes us think and stops for a moment to assess what I have called "incomplete publishable", which only result in a lot of effort being wasted and conclusions cannot be reached on research topics. For this reason, working groups with strict protocols to obtain results, see with some rejection, the large number of publications that fail to provide novelties; rather, they are dedicated to repeating results that have already passed the test of time and the safety of rigorous scientific observation, only with the purpose of maintaining a quantity of presence in different media and thus project a research idea that fails to provide valuable information to modify in positive or negative something that is already scientifically proven. Consequently, and clearly, they are publications that do not fulfill the supreme purpose of disseminating a new or different vision of the subject in question.

Currently our editorial teams must deal with a large number of limiting elements towards the authors to avoid these situations as much as possible, however, the most important limitation of all is the writing outside the regulations of many research works with excellent academic content and great scientific contribution, but with a deficient philological review and a very basic scientific writing often lacking agreement between objectives and conclusions. This situation keeps them lagging behind.

Finally, I would like to send an encouragement to the groups that are developing research dynamics to commit themselves to writing in a uniform way and with international standards, in order to be able to disseminate their results.