-
B – Emerging trends in peer review30 March 2016Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2015;9:169.(doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169) “Classical peer review” has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the […]
-
B – Open access platforms for clinical trial data30 March 2016Navar AM, Pencina MJ, Rymer JA, et al. Use of open access platforms for clinical trial data. (Letter). JAMA 2016;315(12):1283-1284(doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.2374) Concerns over bias in clinical trial reporting have stimulated […]
-
B – Predatory open access30 March 2016Shen C, Bjork B. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 2015;13:230 (doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2) The so-called predatory publishers are causing unfounded negative publicity […]
-
B – Reproducibility in preclinical research30 March 2016Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biology 2016;13(6):e1002165(doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165) Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and […]
-
B – Peer review: current landscape and future trends30 March 2016Jubb M. Peer review: the current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing 2016;29:13-21(doi: 10.1002/leap.1008)This paper catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers […]
-
B – Does it take too long to publish research?30 March 2016Powell K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nature 2016;530:148-151 Some researchers complain that publishing papers takes too long. But is the publication process actually becoming longer — and, […]
-
B – Gender-inequality problem in science30 March 2016Hilton D. Practical policies can combat gender inequality. Nature 2015;523:7 How can science address the gender-inequality problem? According to the author, Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of […]
-
B – Peer review effectiveness21 March 2016Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2015;112(2):360-365(doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112) This article tracks the popularity of rejected and accepted […]
-
B – Peer review and research data21 March 2016Murphy F. An update on peer review and research data. Learned Publishing 2016;29(1):51-53(doi: 10.1002/leap.1005) Technological advances in the amounts of data that researchers generate and use are causing problems for […]
-
B – Science and sexism21 March 2016Morello L. Science and sexism: in the eye of the Twitterstorm. Nature 11 November 2015 Social media has enabled an increasingly public discussion about the persistent problem of sexism in […]
-
B – Ethics approval of research21 March 2016Newson AJ, Lipworth W. Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research? Health Promotion Journal of Australia 9 November 2015 (Epub) (doi: 10.1071/HE15034) Most academic journals […]
-
A: ESE Author Q&A: Daniel Johnston18 March 2016Welcome to the first of a new regular feature we will be bringing you on the EASEBlog – interviews with our European Science Editing authors. Through these interviews, we aim […]