-
B – Rubriq: a peer review service29 October 2014Stemmle L, Collier K. RUBRIQ: tools, services, and software to improve peer review. Learned Publishing 2013;26(4):265-268(doi: 10.1087/20130406) The authors describe the Rubriq peer review service. It is an author-pays model […]
-
B – Research credibility29 October 2014Ioannidis JPA. How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine 2014;11(10):e1001747(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747) Currently, many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85% of research resources are […]
-
B – How to develop high-quality, ethical clinical manuscripts14 October 2014Hindle A, Tobin SC, Robens J, et al. Working with authors to develop high-quality, ethical clinical manuscripts: Guidance for the professional medical writer. Medical Writing 2014;23(3):228-235(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000229) This article provides medical […]
-
B – Retraction notices and COPE guidelines14 October 2014Balhara YP, Mishra A. Compliance of retraction notices for retracted articles on mental disorders with COPE guidelines on retraction. Current Science 2014;107(5):757-760 This study is aimed at assessing the compliance […]
-
B – Wikipedia citations in journal articles22 September 2014Tohidinasab F, Jamali HR. Why and where Wikipedia is cited in journal articles? Journal of Scientometric Research 2013;2(3):231-238(doi: 10.4103/2320-0057.135415) This research aimed to identify the motivations for citation to Wikipedia in […]
-
B – Science publishing in Russia22 September 2014Teixeira da Silva JA, Lukatkin AS. Challenges to research, science writing and publishing in Russia. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 2013;7(1):66-71 Traditionally, Russian researchers write articles […]
-
B – The Kardashian index22 September 2014Hall N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 2014;15:424(doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0) The author proposes the “Kardashian index” (from the name of one of the […]
-
B – Publication bias in social sciences22 September 2014Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014;345(6203):1502-1505(doi: 10.1126/science.1255484) The authors examined every study since 2002 that was funded by […]
-
B – Social media use by medical students19 September 2014Harrison B, Gill J, Jalali A. Social media etiquette for the modern medical student: a narrative review. International Journal of Medical Students 2014;2(2):64-67 Most medical students worldwide are using various […]
-
B – Peer review for RCT19 September 2014Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 2014;12:128(doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z) Innovations in peer review have […]
-
B – Impact factor mania19 September 2014Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014;5(2):e00064-14 (doi: 10.1128/mBio.00064-14)Science and scientists are currently afflicted by an epidemic of mania manifested by associating the value […]
-
B – An example of unethical behaviour19 September 2014Masic I. A new example of unethical behavior in the academic journal “Medical Archives”. Medical Archives 2014;68(4):228-230(doi: 10.5455/medarh.2014.68.228.230) A recent case of unethical behaviour by authors who have submitted their […]