-
B – A CV of failures22 November 2010Stefan M. A CV of failures. Nature 2010;468(467)(doi: 10.1038/nj7322-467a) The CV of a scientist does not mention his failed exams, unsuccessful fellowship applications, rejected projects or papers never accepted for […]
-
B – Implementing open access16 November 2010Armbruster C. Implementing open access: policy case studies. October 14, 2010. Social Science Research Network. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1685855 We are approaching the end of the first generation of open access […]
-
N – Preserving data16 November 2010Scientific data can be lost because of the storage medium (fragile or obsolete) or because researchers weren’t aware of its value. Nature News reports on an attempt to reduce the […]
-
B – Science publishing: whose intellectual property?15 November 2010Salo D. Who owns our work? Serials 2010;23:191-195. (DOI: 10.1629/23191)Intellectual property in scholarly communication is becoming increasingly complex, and research is becoming more collaborative and innovative. As a result, authorship […]
-
N – How much does peer review cost?15 November 2010UK academics spend 2-3 million hours a year reviewing each other’s work, according to a report by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Collections. The cost of this time to […]
-
B – Authorship and industry support15 November 2010Pollock RE, Ewer MS. The integrity of authorship: doing the right thing. Cancer 2010;116(17):3986-3987. (DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25268) This article examines the balance between industry support and integrity of authorship. All articles […]
-
B – Classification of biases in medical research14 November 2010Chavalariasab D, Ioannidis JPA. Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010;63(11):1205-1215. (doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.011) There are many different types of bias in medical research and […]
-
B – Interactive open access publishing and peer review25 October 2010Poeschl U. Interactive open access publishing and peer review: the effectiveness and perspectives of transparency and self-regulation in scientific communication and evaluation. Liber Quarterly 2010;19(3/4):293-314 The traditional ways of scientific […]
-
B – Author-suggested reviewers vs editor-suggested reviewers25 October 2010Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS One 2010;5(10):e13345(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013345) The aim of the article […]
-
B – Disclosing all data24 October 2010Baggerly K. Disclose all data in publications. Nature 2010;467,401.(doi:10.1038/467401b) Three clinical trials at Duke University, USA, were suspended late last year following a protracted investigation. The problem was the inability […]
-
B – A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis22 October 2010Bornmann L, de Moya Anegon F, Leydesdorff L. Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLos One 2010;5(10):e13327(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013327) The hypothesis […]
-
B – A new method for measuring research leadership29 September 2010Klavans R, Boyack KW. Toward an objective, reliable and accurate method for measuring research leadership. Scientometrics 2010;82:539-53(doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0188-6) A new alternative method of measuring research leadership for an actor, be […]