-
B – Peer review process: language and content comments23 April 2010Mungra P. and Webber P. Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes 2010;29(1):43-53(doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002) This study analyzes the peer review comments of articles […]
-
N – Libel law: the real fight lies ahead23 April 2010Libel law: the real fight lies ahead Reformers need to keep up the pressure to reform English libel laws, says an editorial in Nature (22 April 2010, doi:10.1038/4641104a). Simon Singh’s […]
-
B – Plagiarism retracts review23 April 2010Plagiarism retracts review. The Scientist.com. 1 April 2010posted by Bob Grant A review paper was retracted from Nature Reviews Genetics because the author modified a paragraph from a manuscript she […]
-
B – Periodicals Price Survey 201023 April 2010Henderson K.S. and Bosch S. Seeking the new normal: periodicals price survey 2010. Library Journal. April 15, 2010 By the end of 2009 the library marketplace was in a weakened […]
-
N- Authors by the gross20 April 2010After Times Higher Education reported a physics paper with 144 authors (this phenomenon will be familiar to EASE members), readers of THS reported even more gross examples (15 April, p29). […]
-
B – Journal myths30 March 2010Editorial. Exploding the myths surrounding how and why we select our research papers. Nature 2010;463:850.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283/full/463850a.html Nature provides some insights into its paper selection process, and debunks three myths about the […]
-
B – ICMJE requirements on competing interests: do they solve the problems?29 March 2010Hutchinson L, DeVita VT. Conflict of interest disclosures. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7:1http://www.nature.com/nrclinonc/journal/v7/n1/full/nrclinonc.2009.215.html While the ICMJE uniform requirements for disclosure of competing interests are welcome, all journals still rely on […]
-
B – Challenging conventions on sample size29 March 2010Bacchetti P. Current sample size conventions: Flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Medicine 2010;8:17.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/17/abstract The widespread belief that medical research studies need a statistical power of at least 80% to be […]
-
B – Retractions: COPE guidance19 March 2010Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, et al. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Journal of Critical Care 2009;24:620–622. Also available at http://publicationethics.org/guidelines Journal editors should consider retracting […]
-
B- Ghost(writer)busters10 March 2010Lacasse JR, Leo J. Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Med 2010 Feb 2;7(2):e1000230 Ghostwriting can no more be defined as the “dirty little secret” […]
-
B – Researchers’ perception of citations10 March 2010Aksnes DW, Rip A. Researchers’ perception of citations. Research Policy 2009;38(6):895-905(doi:101016/j.respol.2009.02.001) While the use of publication and citation indicators increases, their application is controversial. Researchers perceive citations as part of […]
-
B – Peering into review9 March 2010Editorial. Peering into review. Nature Medicine 2010; 16:239(doi:10.1038/nm0310-239) The peer review process is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Fourteen stem cell editors recently signed an open letter expressing […]