-
B – PrestigeRank: A new evaluation method for papers and journals15 March 2011PrestigeRank: A new evaluation method for papers and journalsSu Cheng, Pan YunTao, Zhen YanNing, Ma Zheng, Yuan JunPeng,Guo Hong, Yu ZhengLu, Ma CaiFeng,Wu YiShanJournal of Informetrics 5 (2011) 1–13doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.011 The object of this study aims at finding a more exact method to determine the impact and value of papers’ citations and journals respectively. The authors […]
-
B – Gender mainstreaming in editorial policies15 March 2011Heidari S, Eckert MJ, Kippax S. et al. Time for gender mainstreaming in editorial poliocies. Journal of International AIDS Society 2011;14:11doi:10.1186/1758-2652-14-11 Despite proven sex and gender differences, women continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials, and the absence of gender analyses in published literature is striking. In recent years, there have been numerous initiatives that […]
-
B – Multiple open access availability and citation impact11 March 2011Xia J, Myers RL, Wilhoite SK. Multiple open access availability and citation impact. Journal of Information Science 2011;37:19-28(doi: 10.1177/0165551510389358) The research examines the relationship between open access (OA) availability of journal articles and the citation advantage by collecting data of OA copies and citation numbers in 20 top library and information science journals. A correlation […]
-
B – Impact factors and editing of medical journals10 March 2011Gasparyan AY. Editorial. Thoughts on impact factors and editing of medical journals. Inflammation & Allergy – Drug Targets 2010;9(1):2-5 In our times editing of medical journals is gaining more importance as a driving force of science communication. High quality of publications and their impact ia s result of a process, to which non only authors […]
-
B – Open online review4 March 2011Mandavilli A. Trial by twitter. Nature 2011;469:286-287 The idea of open, online peer review is hardly new. In some fields scientists seem not willing to get involved in pre-publication discussion. Biologists, in particular, are notoriously reluctant to publicly discuss their own work or comment on the work of others for fear of being scooped by […]
-
B – Unpublished results hide the decline effect4 March 2011Schooler J. Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature News 2011;470(437)(doi:10.1038/470437a) Many scientifically discovered effects published in the literature seem to diminish with time. Some scientists attribute the decline effect to statistical self-correction of initially exaggerated outcomes. But to be sure of this interpretation, “negative results” – that is, experimental outcomes that were not noteworthy […]
-
B – Collaborator proximity as a predictor of scientific impact3 March 2011Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG et al. Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS ONE 2010;5(12):e14279(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014279) This study investigated whether the physical proximity of collaborators was a strong predictor of the scientific impact of their research as measured by citations of the resulting publications. It was focused on life sciences research across three […]
-
B – Are scientists good communicators?3 March 2011Radford T. Of course scientists can communicate. Nature 2011;469(445)(doi:10.1038/469445a) There are reasons why scientists, in particular, should be and often are good communicators. One is that most scientists work with enthusiasm, and this is infectious. The problems for the scientist as a public communicator start with academic publishing: the language, form and conventions of the […]
-
B – Public access to publicly funded research3 March 2011Giglia E. Public access to publicly funded research: how and why mandatory policies by funders? European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2010;46(4):603-607 In the latest years several funders and public organizations at national and international level claimed with public statements for free access to publicly funded research. This contribution presents the principles upon which […]
-
B – Scientists prefer reading over publishing open access papers2 March 2011Vogel G. Quandary: scientists prefer reading over publishing ‘open access’ papers. ScienceInsider 14 January 2011 The EU-sponsored Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP Project) surveyed 50,000 researchers for their opinions on open access (OA) journals. The study found two main reasons researchers don’t submit their work to OA journals: almost 40% said that a lack […]
-
B – OA Repositories: the researchers’ point of view2 March 2011Theodorou R. OA Repositories: the Researchers’ point of view. The Journal of Electronic Publishing December 2010;13(3)(doi: 10.3998/3336451.0013.304) A study examined how researchers consider and use open access (OA) publications. A survey, addressed to research and academic institutions of social and natural science in Europe and North America, took place between June and August 2009. In […]
-
B – Publishers’ opinion about open access2 March 2011Fister B. The cash cow has left the room. What will it take for publishers to wake up to our reality? LibraryJournal Jan 13, 2011 This past yaer has seen some real progress on the open access front. Today nearly 6.000 titles appear in the Directory of Open Access Journals, more journals participate in PubMed […]
