-
B – Retracted science and retracted index20 September 2011Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity 2011;79(10)(doi: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11) Overall, manuscript retraction appears to be occurring more frequently, although it is uncertain whether this […]
-
B – Can a scientific retraction change public opinion?20 September 2011Harmon K. Impact factor: can a scientific retraction change public opinion? Scientific American March 4, 2010 The article discusses the effect that scientific retractions have on public opinion. After initial […]
-
B – Quantifying effort in scientific publishing19 September 2011Winker K. In scientific publishing at the article level, effort matters more than journal impact factors. Bioessays 2011;33(6):400-402(doi: 10.1002/bies.201100020) Effort involved in producing a particular paper is difficult to quantify. […]
-
B – The k-index as an antidote against the h-index19 September 2011Molinié A, Bodenhausen G. The kinship or k-index as an antidote against the toxic effects of h-index. CHEMIA International Journal for Chemistry 2011;65(6):433-436(doi: 10.2533/chimia.2011.433) According to the authors, the current […]
-
B – Self-citation bias in psychological science19 September 2011Brysbaert M, Smith S. Self-enhancement in scientific research: the self-citation bias. Psychologica Belgica 2011;5(2):129-137 Self-enhancement and self-citation biases are well-documented phenomena in the social psychology field. The article examines the […]
-
B – Communicating uncertainties visually19 September 2011Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 2011;333(6048):1393-1400(doi: 10.1126/science.1191181) Explanation of uncertainties presents a serious challenge, particularly to an audience with a wide range of […]
-
B – Crafting a revision16 September 2011Editorial. Crafting a revision. Nature Neuroscience 2011;14:941(doi: 10.1038/nn0811-941) A thoughtful revision of a paper based on editorial and referee feedback does improve its quality. The process of revising a paper […]
-
B – Evaluation of peer review system16 September 2011O’Dowd A. Peer review system needs thorough evaluation, MPs hear. BMJ 2011;342:d3046(doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3046) The UK parliamentary science and technology committee carried out an inquiry into the peer review process in […]
-
B – Reporting guidelines for health research: a review9 September 2011Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(7):718-742(doi: 10.1016/j.clinepi.2010.09.013) This review includes 81 reporting guidelines, most […]
-
B – Conflict of interest in oncology9 September 2011Kesselheim AS, Lee JL, Avorn J et al. Conflict of interest in oncology publications. A survey of disclosure policies and statements. Cancer 2011, epub 29 June(doi: 10.1002/cncr.26237) Because eliminating potential […]
-
B – The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review9 September 2011Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2011;99(3):208-217(doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.008) The paper reviews the […]
-
B – Authorship problems in small medical journals8 September 2011Marušić A. Problems of editors with authorship in small medical journals. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011;2(3):130-132 Authorship is a serious problem in smaller scientific communities . […]