-
B – Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics25 May 2010Sigfried T. Odds are, it’s wrong. Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics. ScienceNews 2010; 177:7 Science has long been married to mathematics and mathematical methods have been secured science’s fidelity to fact and given reliability to findings. Then science was seduced by statistics. The author says that even when performed correctly, statistical tests […]
-
N – Learn a language, adopt a national stereotype?25 May 2010Learn a language, adopt a national stereotype? The multicultural membership of EASE might be interested in national stereotyping present in the language learning materials prepared by the US Foreign Service Institute. Swedish nationals are depicted as cartoon vikings. Native Americans only appear in full traditional headdress. The countries that comprise the African francophonie are described […]
-
N – Making referencing too easy?25 May 2010Making referencing too easy?The Open University and its partners have developed a free, open source software – MyReferences – to help students and universities manage academic references more easily. It is part of the Technology Enhanced Learning supporting students to achieve Academic Rigour (TELSTAR) project. Any institution can download it, customise it to their own […]
-
N – Science video awards25 May 2010Click on the links to see the winners of The Scientist Video Awards. They include: “Synaptic Cleft”, a parody of rap group Wu-Tang Clan’s, “Gravel Pit” about neurotransmission, and “Fencing Flamingos”, which follows the work of a PhD student in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology , studying flamingos in the rugged High-Andes of Bolivia. The harsh […]
-
B – Fraud: who is responsible?25 May 2010Blaustein, JD. Fraud: who is responsible? The Scientist 2010 “Who is responsible for the fraudulent data making its way into publication?” – asked the editor of Endocrinology – as a paper published in his journal was being retracted due to fraud. The allegations that led to action by the US Office of Research Integrity did […]
-
B – Conflict of interest policies21 May 2010Krimsky S, Sweet E. An analysis of toxicology and medical journal conflict-of-interest polices. Account Res 2009;16:235-253. A comparison of journals’ conflict-of-interest (COI) policies can provide insight into published reports of low compliance rates and inconsistencies in disclosures by the same author in different journals. COI policies of 227 medical and toxicology journals were examined for […]
-
B – Research misconduct policies21 May 2010Resnik DB, Peddada S, Brunson W Jr. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Account Res 2009;16:254-267. A random sample of 399 journals were contacted, asking for details of policies on research misconduct. Of the 197 journals that responded, 55% had a policy, but most policies didn’t define misconduct and most weren’t created by the journal. […]
-
B – E-publication bias20 May 2010Jakobsen AK, Christensen R, Persson R, et al. Open access publishing; and now, e-publication bias. BMJ 2010;340. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2243 ‘E-publication bias’ is identified in this small study of articles published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The research suggests that author-paid open access publishing preferentially increases accessibility to industry-funded research, perhaps favouring distribution of pro-industry results.
-
B- Roundtable participants find near-consensus on free access to results of publicly funded research2 May 2010David Kramer:http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_63/iss_3/26_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1The premise of Harold Varmus for free online access to all published NIH work is very simple: taxpayers are not supposed to pay to “to see the results of the research that they paid for” in the first place. After ten years of pressure, thanks to a Congress mandate since mid 2008 all the […]
-
B – Preparing clinical data for publication2 May 2010Hrynaszkiewicz I, Norton ML, Vickers AJ, et al. Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Trials 2010;11:28. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-9 Many journals require authors to make their raw, unprocessed data available to other scientists, but there is little information on how this data should be prepared for publication and sharing. […]
-
B – Publication bias in surgery journals1 May 2010Pitak-Arnnop P, Sader R, Rapidis AD, et al. Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: an observation on published controlled trials. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2010;38(1):4-10. (doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.005) Publication bias compromises evidence-based practice. This study looked for publication bias in 53 published controlled trials in leading oral and maxillofacial surgery journals. Journals preferentially published controlled […]
-
B – Peer review process: language and content comments23 April 2010Mungra P. and Webber P. Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes 2010;29(1):43-53(doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002) This study analyzes the peer review comments of articles written by Italian medical and clinical research scientists and submitted to reputable English language journals. It is aimed at establishing the most frequent types of […]
