-
B – Why scientists decline to review papers23 December 2015Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J, et al. Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peer’s work. PS: Political Science & Politics 2015;48(4):595-600(doi: 10.1017/S1049096515000827) The double-blind peer review process is […]
-
B – Double-blind review23 December 2015Menéndez J. More on double-blind review. APS News 2015;24(10):4 Letter that gives reason why double-blind review should not be optional and also thinks it would be valuable in avoiding institutional […]
-
B – Internet influence on plagiarism23 December 2015Ison DC. The influence of the Internet on plagiarism among doctoral dissertations: an empirical study. Journal of Academic Ethics 2015;13(2):151-66(doi: 10.1007/s10805-015-9233-7) The online environment is accelerating the decline in academic […]
-
B – Retraction policies of top journals23 December 2015Resnik DB, Wager E, Kissling GE. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2015;103(3):136-9(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006) The purpose of this study was […]
-
B – The end of journals22 December 2015Krumholz HM. The end of journals. Circulation e-pub Nov. 10, 2015(doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002415) According to the author, there are at least 9 deficiencies in the current publication model that fuel the sense […]
-
B – Negative results6 October 2015Teixeira da Silva JA. Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 2015;14:12(doi: 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9) Not all negative results in science get published. Part […]
-
B – Increasing value and reduce waste6 October 2015Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? The Lancet Sept. 28, 2015(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4) Published online during the REWARD/EQUATOR Conference […]
-
B – Can a medical researcher have too many publications?6 October 2015Jorm AF. Can a medical researcher have too many publications? The Medical Journal of Australia 2015;203(5):230-1(doi: 10.5694/mja15.00194) Most prolific researchers may not be adhering to authorship guidelines: the author argues […]
-
B – The COBWEB randomized controlled trial6 October 2015Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC […]
-
B – How to improve the medical research literature24 September 2015Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Medicine 2015;12(9):e1001864(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864) The authors discuss four potential contributory actions by journals and educational institutions to help […]
-
B – Gender gap in social-science funding24 September 2015Boyle PJ, Smith LK, Cooper NJ, et al. Women are funded more fairly in social science. Nature 10 Sept. 2015;525:181-183 In the biomedical sciences, women get smaller grants than men […]
-
B – Editorial Board meetings24 September 2015Cochran A. The value in attending editorial board meetings. The Scholarly Kitchen Apr 9 2015 The author has learned a lot from her own large experience about what makes editorial board meetings […]