-
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 findings are published part of the readers will not change their mind even if the paper is retracted. The paper’s influence on the public may […]
-
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. Neverthanless, it and the number of authors are positively correlated with citation count: working hard and work effectively with others are the most important factors […]
-
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 fashion of ranking people, papers and journals is anything but harmless. They suggest to measure the “fertility” of individual researchers – with respect to their […]
-
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 number of self-citations in articles published by four journals and the reasons why authors cite themselves. References in articles are not always included because they […]
-
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 scientific and mathematical expertise. In this review current practice for communicating uncertainties by means of graphic visualizations are examined, using examples drawn from sport, weather, […]
-
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 can sometimes be frustrating for the authors, editors and referees. Authors should be open to referee criticisms and should go through his comments point by […]
-
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 science. Several medical and scientific journal editors appearing before the committee last May spoke of the many merits of the peer review system, but they […]
-
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 of which have been developed in the last 10 years. Fifty-eight percent of them are classified as new guidance. The authors believe that a more […]
-
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 conflicts of interest is essentially impossible, nearly all biomedical journals require authors to disclose funding for their work, as well as other relevant relationships that […]
-
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 recent studies that evaluate the impact of free access (open access) on scholars, clinicians, and the general public in developed and developing countries. The review […]
-
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 . Many authors do not qualify for the standard authorship criteria set by the ICMJE and some editors as well cannot be familiar with them. Funding […]
-
B – Authors’ awareness toward OA repositories20 July 2011Creaser C, Fry J, Greenwood H et al. Authors’ awareness and attitudes toward open access repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship 2010;16(S1):145-161(doi: 10.1080/13614533.2010.518851) This article investigates the awareness of scholarly authors toward open access repositories and the factors that motivate their use. The research findings indicated that although there was a good understanding and appreciation […]
