-
B – Impact factor of open access journals25 January 2011Giglia E. The Impact Factor of open access journals: data and trends. In: ELPUB 2010 International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Helsinki (Finland), 16-18 June 2010 This work is aimed at testing the impact factor of open access (OA) journals, to verify the hypothesis that unrestricted access might turn into more citations, that is good impact […]
-
B – Scholarly communication – can we have our name back?18 January 2011Singleton A. Editorial. Scholarly communication – can we have our name back? Learned Publishing 2011;24(1):3-4(doi: 10.1087/20110101) It discusses the appropriateness of the use of the term “scholarly communication” to which over the last years it has been giving a meaning that is not the proper one. The properly defined term is much wider than the […]
-
B – The manuscript reviewing process14 January 2011Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review request, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research 2010;32:5-12(doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010) This study investigates which review requests are assigned by editors to external reviewers, which sequences of review steps typically occurr, and which rules are used by editors […]
-
N – New journal: Scientific Reports10 January 2011Nature Publishing Group (NPG) will launch a new open-access online science journal in summer 2011. The new journal, called Scientific Reports, will accept primary research articles across any of the natural sciences, divided into four themes: biology, chemistry, physics, earth sciences. Authors who have had papers rejected by other NPG journals can use an automated […]
-
B – The predictive validity of peer review5 January 2011Benda WGG, Engels TCE. The predictive validity of peer review: a selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. International Journal of Forecasting 2011;27:166-82(doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.003) Some form of judgmental assessment is implied in the peer review process, often forecasting the impact of the work. The article investigates what the […]
-
B – Peer review – Beyond the call of duty?5 January 2011Griffiths P, Baveye PC. Peer review – Beyond the call of duty? International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011;48(1):1-2(doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.12.013) Peer reviewing is a crucial component of the publishing process. Unfortunately, a high proportion, probably a majority, of review invitations are declined. The article identifies the outstanding problems and the need to find ways to convince researchers […]
-
N – Friends in open places5 January 2011When peer reviewers are suggested by a paper’s author(s), the feedback is likely to be more positive than when the journal editors chose the reviewers. That may not be surprising, but a new study published in PLoS ONE has found evidence of this occurring even when an open peer review system is used. The journal […]
-
N – Pubmed Author ID5 January 2011The US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), is addressing the issue of author name variation within PubMed. A new system, called PubMed Author ID, will require authors to register and to identify their research articles in PubMed, thus allowing NCBI to link alternate names and spellings. […]
-
N – ORCID Initiative5 January 2011The ORCID Initiative (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) has been formed by a group of publishing and research organizations with the mission of resolving author-name ambiguity. It is building a registry of unique identifiers for individual researchers, with an open and transparent linking mechanism with other author ID schemes. The aim is to make ORCID […]
-
B – Abstract preparation4 January 2011Clarann Weinert SC. Are all abstracts created equal?? Applied Nursing Research 2010;23(2):106-9(doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2008.06.003) The preparation of a strong, convincing abstract is crucial for each investigator or clinical scholar. The scientific community reads more abstracts than full texts. The article explores each critical stage of abstract development: planning, drafting, reviewing, peer reviewing, editing, and packaging. It also […]
-
B – How to collaborate with medical communicators29 December 2010Hamilton CW. Don’t get spooked! How to collaborate with a professional medical communicator (and avoid ghostwriting). Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 2010;58(4):255-61 The article reviews relevant guidelines and provides practical tips for authors interested in collaborating with medical communicators (i.e. medical writers and editors). It addresses a series of questions, such as what to expect […]
-
B – Publishers and point-of-care information services29 December 2010Moja L. Banzi R. Navigators for medicine: evolution of point-of-care evidence-based services. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2011;65(1):6-11(doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02441.x) The publishers’ mission is changing: the traditional medicine journal publishing trials and reviews in general is perceived as too static and remote from practice. Now publishers are re-focusing their efforts towards “information hubs” in which several […]
