-
B – Data archiving8 March 2010Whitlock MC, McPeek MA, Rausher MD, et al. Data archiving. The American Naturalist 2010;175:145-146.http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/650340 Most data in ecology and evolution are lost to science very quickly after they are collected or summarised. Once a study has been published, the data are often stored unreliably. Yet these data are invaluable to science, for meta‐analysis, new uses, […]
-
B – Effect of oncology trial registration on published findings8 March 2010Rasmussen N, Lee K, Bero L. Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs. Trials 2009,10:116.http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/10/1/116 Registration of clinical trials was intended to reduce bias toward statistically significant results in published studies. But registration alone may not be enough to reduce selective publication, selective outcome reporting, and […]
-
B – Journal editorial policies on animal welfare8 March 2010Osborne NJ, Payne D, Newman ML. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. Amerian Journal of Bioethics 2009;9(12):55-59.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20013503 A randomized sample of editorial policies of English language peer-reviewed journals that publish original research involving the use of animals. Do policies promote animal welfare and dissemination of information on the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) within […]
-
B – Publishing flow cytometry data8 March 2010Alvarez DF, Helm K, DeGregori J, et al. Publishing flow cytometry data. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2010;298:L127-L130.doi:10.1152/ajplung.00313.2009 Flow cytometric analysis is an important method for better understanding cellular activity. The complexity of the data arising from this technique demands a standard way of publishing. A way of consistently summarising flow cytometric experimental […]
-
B – On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007)8 March 2010Larivière V, Gingras Y. On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007). Journal of Documentation 2010;66:179-90(doi:10.1108/0022041101.1023607) Duplicate publications have received a lot of attention in medical literature but much less in the information science community. A bibliometric technique was developed by authors to detect duplicate papers across all fields […]
-
B – Lost in translation: the challenges of global communication in medical education publishing8 March 2010Cantillon P, McLeod P, Razack S et al. Lost in translation: the challenges of global communication in medical education publishing. Medical Education 2009;43:615-20doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03383.x It is important that authors and editors consider how their use of languages is interpreted by colleagues who work in different settings. Communicating meaning between different cultures and contexts is an important […]
-
B – Do scientists really need a PhD?5 March 2010Editorial. Do scientists really need a PhD? Nature 2010;464(1785)doi:10.1038/464007a In the USA and Europe students usually need to finish a multiyear programme of postgraduate training before they can fully participate in the front rank of research. The Chinese Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) has enrolled about 500 university students to join the Institute soon after their […]
-
N – Elsevier sets standards for sponsored content24 February 2010Elsevier announces new custom publication guidelines, sets new standards for publishing sponsored content – 24 Feb 2010STM publisher Elsevier, Netherlands, has announced that it will publicly share its internal custom publication guidelines. The global publisher seeks to provide scientific and medical communities, insight into a new and practical set of publishing standards for producing custom […]
-
B – High-information studies: highlighting the hypotheses23 February 2010Editorial. Conclusion by exclusion. Nat Genet 2010;42:95.http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n2/full/ng0210-95.html Studies of systems models and biomarkers both present large amounts of information to publishers and readers. To aid review and readability, such studies should propose explicit hypotheses and demonstrate exclusion of competing explanations. To distinguish the direct influence of the research independently of the publications that describe it, […]
-
B – Are libel laws stfiling medical journals?23 February 2010Abbasi K. Keep libel laws out of science. J Roy Soc Med 2010;103:39. http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/103/2/39 A good editor will publish articles that will upset some readers or institutions. But if the level of upset prompts legal action, the journal is exposed to a substantial financial risk. This knowledge inevitably complicates editorial decisions. The only way a […]
-
B- Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication22 February 2010Roland MC. Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication. Jcom 2009;08(02):A04 Standards and good practice guidelines provide criteria for maintaining quality and integrity in science. This paper shows that most scientific papers and researchers’ writing practices provide evidence that they do not conform to quality criteria. A majority of researchers […]
-
N – Non-sexist job titles in Guardian style22 February 2010Mind your languageThe editor of the Guardian style guide on … playing doctors and doctresseBy David MarshHell hath no fury like a man scorned, as the proverb doesn’t go (but perhaps should). A monstrous regiment of men has taken exception to the Guardian’s policy of calling female actors just that – actors – rather than […]
