-
B – Transparency in research publishing4 January 2018Editorial. Steps towards transparency in research publishing. Nature 2017;549(431)(doi: 10.1038/549431a) Progress in the transparency of both research and editorial processes is gathering pace. But as these processes become increasingly open, […]
-
B – Facial appearance affects science communication4 January 2018Gheorghiu AI, Callan MJ, Skylark WJ. Facial appearance affects science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017;114(23):5970-5975(doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620542114) This article shows that the science communication process is influenced by […]
-
B – Google Scholar normalization4 January 2018Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics 2017;112(2):1111-1121(doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x) Bibliometric evaluations across disciplines require that the data are normalized to the field as […]
-
B – Appeals of rejected manuscripts4 January 2018Dambha-Miller H. An appealing prospect? A survey into the numbers, outcomes, and editorial policies for appeals of rejected biomedical manuscripts. Learned Publishing 2017;30(3):227-231(doi: 10.1002/leap.1107) This article investigated the number of […]
-
B – Twitter in science3 January 2018López-Goñi I, Sánchez-Angulo M. Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology Letters 2017 Nov. 20(doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx246) A review on the use […]
-
B – Publication ethics in health emergencies3 January 2018Shaw D, Elger BS. Publication ethics in public health emergencies. Journal of Public Health 2017;39(3):640-643(doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdw067) The authors describe and analyze three issues in publication ethics that are raised when conducting […]
-
B – Quantity and quality in scientific publishing3 January 2018Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. PLos ONE 2017;12(6):e0178074(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178074) Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality on scientific publishing. The authors […]
-
B – New publishing model to avoid CoI3 January 2018Amigo I, Pascual-Garcia A. Conflicts of interest in scientific publishing. EMBO reports 2017:e201745008(doi: 10.15252/embr.201745008)The authors suggest a publishing model that would redistribute funding and the role of different actors – […]
-
B – Correcting or retracting faulty publications3 January 2018Teixeira da Silva JA. It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature. Croatian Medical Journal 2017;58(1):75-79(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2017.58.75) Correcting errors in the literature is generally considered […]
-
B – Reproducibility and faculty promotion3 January 2018Flier J. Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility. Nature 2017;549(7671):133(doi: 10.1038/549133a) Reproducibility and robustness are under-emphasized when job applicants are evaluated in academic and research institutions and when faculty members are promoted. […]
-
B – Web services for authors28 December 2017Forrester A, Björk B, Tenopir C. New web services that help authors choose journals. Learned Publishing 2017;30(4):281-287(doi: 10.1002/leap.1112) The motivations for an author to choose a journal to submit to […]
-
B – Gender discrimination against women scientists28 December 2017Sills J. Not just Salk. Science 2017;357(6356):1105-1106doi: 10.1126/science.aao6221 Three of four senior women scientists at the US Salk Institute for Biological Studies have filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination. These […]