Human and comparative bomedical science, when methods count more than results
| Published |
| January 13, 2026 |
| Title |
| Human and comparative bomedical science, when methods count more than results |
| Author |
| Giovanni Di Guardo |
| DOI |
| 10.62684/BNQY7874 |
| Keywords |
| Biomedical science; Methods; Results; Scientific rigour; PubMed; CoViD-19. |
| Downloads |
 |
DVM, Dipl. ECVP, Former Professor of General Pathology and Veterinary Pathophysiology at the Veterinary Medical Faculty of the University of Teramo, Località Piano d’Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
Correspondence to: gdiguardo@unite.it
Abstract
The present Editorial deals with the paramount relevance of the scientific methodology employed for pursuing the objectives of any human and veterinary biomedical study. Within a sound "evidence-based medicine" perspective, the quality of obtained results should be evaluated on the basis of the methods used, either inspired by reliable bibliographic sources (e.g. PubMed) or, alternatively, by the web. In the latter case, a concrete risk refers to the possibility that results of doubtful, or even of no scientific value, may be magnified by the general public over those generated following a rigorous and standardized scientific methodology.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
References
- Bortolotti D. (2008). Wild Blue: A Natural History of the World's Largest Animal. St. Martin's Press, New York, USA.
