-
B – Facial appearance affects science communication4 January 2018Gheorghiu AI, Callan MJ, Skylark WJ. Facial appearance affects science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017;114(23):5970-5975(doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620542114) This article shows that the science communication process is influenced by the facial appearance of the scientist. It identified the traits that engender interest in a scientist’s work and the perception that they do high-quality work, […]
-
B – Google Scholar normalization4 January 2018Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics 2017;112(2):1111-1121(doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x) Bibliometric evaluations across disciplines require that the data are normalized to the field as the fields are very different in their citation processes. This paper tests a method for Google Scholar (GS) normalization developed by Bornmann et al. on […]
-
B – Appeals of rejected manuscripts4 January 2018Dambha-Miller H. An appealing prospect? A survey into the numbers, outcomes, and editorial policies for appeals of rejected biomedical manuscripts. Learned Publishing 2017;30(3):227-231(doi: 10.1002/leap.1107) This article investigated the number of appeals against rejected biomedical manuscripts, their success rates, and the current editorial processes for managing them. Results showed considerable variations in appeal processes amongst journals, […]
-
B – Twitter in science3 January 2018López-Goñi I, Sánchez-Angulo M. Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology Letters 2017 Nov. 20(doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnx246) A review on the use of Twitter in science and a comment on the authors’ experience on using it as a platform for a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) in […]
-
B – Publication ethics in health emergencies3 January 2018Shaw D, Elger BS. Publication ethics in public health emergencies. Journal of Public Health 2017;39(3):640-643(doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdw067) The authors describe and analyze three issues in publication ethics that are raised when conducting research in health emergencies and disasters: reluctance to share data and samples; loss of individual authorship; and death of authors.https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/39/3/640/3002992
-
B – Quantity and quality in scientific publishing3 January 2018Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. PLos ONE 2017;12(6):e0178074(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178074) Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality on scientific publishing. The authors compared members of the National Academy of Sciences with themselves across years, and used a much larger dataset than previously analized. They found that a […]
-
B – New publishing model to avoid CoI3 January 2018Amigo I, Pascual-Garcia A. Conflicts of interest in scientific publishing. EMBO reports 2017:e201745008(doi: 10.15252/embr.201745008)The authors suggest a publishing model that would redistribute funding and the role of different actors – scientists, metric companies, librarians and so on – to maximize the impact of their respective skills for the benefit of science. Research papers and scientific […]
-
B – Correcting or retracting faulty publications3 January 2018Teixeira da Silva JA. It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature. Croatian Medical Journal 2017;58(1):75-79(doi: 10.3325/cmj.2017.58.75) Correcting errors in the literature is generally considered to be a positive academic achievement. In contrast, retracting erroneous or fraudulent work is still viewed in a negative light. Corrections might be embraced as […]
-
B – Reproducibility and faculty promotion3 January 2018Flier J. Faculty promotion must assess reproducibility. Nature 2017;549(7671):133(doi: 10.1038/549133a) Reproducibility and robustness are under-emphasized when job applicants are evaluated in academic and research institutions and when faculty members are promoted. Institutions should explicitly seek job candidates who can be frankly self-critical of their work. Evidence of self-scepticism is rarely seen, but this is an essential […]
-
B – Web services for authors28 December 2017Forrester A, Björk B, Tenopir C. New web services that help authors choose journals. Learned Publishing 2017;30(4):281-287(doi: 10.1002/leap.1112) The motivations for an author to choose a journal to submit to are complex. He requires information about multiple characteristics that may be difficult to obtain. This article compares and contrasts the new author-oriented journal comparison tools […]
-
B – Gender discrimination against women scientists28 December 2017Sills J. Not just Salk. Science 2017;357(6356):1105-1106doi: 10.1126/science.aao6221 Three of four senior women scientists at the US Salk Institute for Biological Studies have filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination. These problems are still relevant, and they are not unique to the Salk Institute. Other women scientist raised questions of similar discrimination at their institutions, and […]
-
B – A lifetime words limit for researchers28 December 2017Martinson BC. Give reasearchers a lifetime word limit. Nature 2017 Oct 17 Once a researcher’s primary role was to share knowledge, now it is to get a publication. The author imagines how rationing the number of publications a scientist could put out might improve the scientific literature. Lifetime limits would create a natural incentive to […]
