-
B – Potential COI23 May 2017McCoy MS, Emanuel EJ. Why there are no “potential” conflicts of interest. JAMA 2017;317(17):1721-1722doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2308 The notion of a potential conflict of interest (COI) reflects the mistaken view that a […]
-
B – A checklist to improve medical writing23 May 2017Leventhal PS. A checklist to improve your writing. Medical Writing 2017;26(1):43-45 A checklist of eight items to improve medical writing is provided, with explanations and examples for each item. Several of […]
-
B – Scientists on Twitter23 May 2017Ke q, Ahn Y-Y, Sugimoto CR. A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE 2017;12(4):e0175368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 The authors developed a systematic method to discover scientists who are recognized […]
-
B – Meta-assessment of bias23 May 2017Fanelli D, Costas R, Ioannidis JP. Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2017;114(14):3714-3719(doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114) Actual prevalence of biases across disciplines is unknown. To gain a […]
-
B – Institutional OA publishing4 April 2017Shashok K. Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers? arXiv:1701.02461 This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that […]
-
B – Full discovery: the publisher’s role29 March 2017Dove JG. Full discovery: what is the publisher’s role? Learned Publishing 2017;30(1):81-86(doi: 10.1002/leap.1086) Efforts over the years to improve content discoverability have made great progress, but an increasing amount of […]
-
B – Evidence-based review of Open Access29 March 2017Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016;5:632(doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3) This review presents published evidence of the […]
-
B – Accountability in publishing29 March 2017Mani H. Foot print of a paper: accountability in academic publishing. The Lancet 2016;338(1004):562-563(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31217-X) At the moment, the publishing process is unaccountable to the readers and is not transparent. […]
-
B – Journal self-citations29 March 2017Heneberg P. From excessive journal self-cites to citation stacking: analysis of journal self-citation kinetics in search for journals, which boost their scientometric indicators. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153730(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153730.s001)Little is known about kinetics […]
-
B – Publication ethics statement29 March 2017Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, et al. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2016;31(9):1351-1354(doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351) Editors and publishers are frequently encountered with […]
-
B – Systematic reviews29 March 2017Barbui C, Addis A, Amato L, et al. Can systematic reviews contribute to regulatory decisions? European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2017;73(4):507-509(doi: 10.1007/s00228-016-2194-y) Discusses the potential usefulness of systematic reviews in […]
-
B – Reproducibility28 March 2017Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, et al. Reproducibility: a tragedy of errors. Nature 20163 Feb. 3 530(7588):27-9(doi: 10.1038/530027a) Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix. Post-publication […]