-
B- How to review journal manuscripts10 September 2010Rosenfeld RM. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;142(4):472-86(doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010) Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review. A common complaint of nearly all journal editors is the difficulty in finding competent reviewers: identifying content experts is relatively easy, but finding those with expertise in both content and reviewing is quite another matter. […]
-
B – Peer review should continue after publication10 September 2010Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. American Journal of Ophtalmology 2010;149 (3):359-60(doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.11.015) Readers assume that articles published in peer-reviewed journals are scientifically valid, but there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Most common errors in articles are methodological or study design ones. Journals are responsible for the integrity of peer-reviewed literature but many […]
-
B – Free journals grow10 September 2010Kaiser J. Free journals grow amid ongoing debate. Science 20 August 2010;329(5994):896-8(doi: 10.1126/science.329.5994.896) Today the so-called open access (OA) movement is claiming success with publishers producing hundreds of free-to-read, peer-reviewed journals. The most prominent publisher, the Public Library of Science (PLoS), launched its first journal, PLoS Biology, in 2003. A recent study found that 20% […]
-
B – The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)10 September 2010Craig ID. Introducing SNIP to the Journal of Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med 2010;7:2661-2(doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01907.x) The Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) is a new journal indicator that is based on citation data derived from Elsevier’s Scopus. It combines characteristics of how well a journal is cited with characteristics of the subject area in which […]
-
B – Can we do better than existing author citation metrics?10 September 2010Finch A. Can we do better than existing author citation metrics? Bioessays 2010; 32:744-7(doi: 10.1002/bies.201000053) Trying to find a single accurate metric to properly measure author impact is quite impossible at the moment as it would need to consider a number of important criteria. The article reviews the usefulness of the various author citation metrics […]
-
N – UK science austerity on its way9 September 2010Researchers in the United Kingdom are anxiously waiting to see what damage may be inflicted on R&D funding by the government’s budget deficit. Levels of funding for the next few years will be revealed in the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, due out on 20 October. In a speech at Queen Mary, University of London, Vince […]
-
N – Top tips for editorial professionals9 September 2010The UK’s Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP) has compiled two sets of top tips from its membership, one from the point of view of freelance copy-editors and proofreaders and one from the perspective of project managers and managing editors. Rooted in years of experience, both sets highlight the things that are important to bear […]
-
N – US open access battle rumbles on9 September 2010The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has warned that US government mandates requiring free access to journal articles published by the private sector would seriously undermine scientific communication, as well as jobs, exports and copyright protection. In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Allan Adler, AAP’s Vice President for Legal and […]
-
N – Making climate data free for all9 September 2010Meteorologists are meeting this week to hammer out a solution to one of the thorniest problems in climate science: how to make raw climate data freely available to all. The workshop, to be held in Exeter, UK, on 7-9 September, will be hosted by Britain’s Meteorological Office. It follows years of discussion within the climate […]
-
N – Ghostwriting in the drug industry9 September 2010Journal articles on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) ghostwritten by medical writers employed by the pharmaceutical industry serially understated the treatment’s risks and promoted unapproved uses, according to an analysis of industry documents. The analysis, published in the journal PLoS Medicine, is based on some 1,500 emails, contracts and other documents made public in July 2009, […]
-
N – JSTOR interface update9 September 2010On 21 August 2010 JSTOR released a new interface. One feature, the ability for any user to submit a search against all JSTOR content, drew strong reactions from many in the library community. Their key concern was that JSTOR users at participating institutions with a subset of JSTOR collections could get search results pointing to […]
-
N – ENCePP Code of Conduct9 September 2010The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) of the European Medicine Agency has developed a Code of Conduct for scientific independence and transparency in the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological and pharmacovigilance studies. The Code also addresses issues of publication and reporting of study results, and recommends following the Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices […]
