-
B – Authorship policies29 December 2016Resnik DB, Tyler AM, Black JR, et al. Authorship policies of scientific journals. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42(3):199-202(doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103171) The authors analysed the authorship policies of a random sample of 600 journals from the Journal Citation Reports database. 62.5% of the journals they sampled had an authorship policy. Journals from the biomedical sciences and social […]
-
B – ResearchGate29 December 2016Nicholas D, Clark D, Herman E. ResearchGate: reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing 2016;29(3):173-82(10.1002/leap.1035)ResearchGate (RG) is a scholarly social network possessing, probably, the most comprehensive set of reputational metrics and has the potential to supplant publishers as the prime deliverer of scholarly reputation. This study aims to assess RG’s reputational facilities and its conclusions are: RG provides a […]
-
B – Where are the data?29 December 2016Announcement: where are the data? Editorial. Nature 537;138 (doi: 10.1038/537138a) Starting September 2016, all research papers accepted for publication in Nature and an initial 12 other Nature titles were required to include information on whether and how others can access the underlying data. These data-availability statements should report the availability of the ‘minimal data set’ necessary to […]
-
B – Medical gems21 December 2016De Faoite D. Medical gems. Medical Writing 2016;2 Every discipline employs its own secretive words – jargon that allows initiates to communicate with one another in a way that excludes others. The world of medicine is no exception. The idioms used by doctors and surgeons range from the humorous to terms which seem designed to […]
-
B – If I tweet will you cite?21 December 2016Tonia T, Van Oyen H, Berger A, et al. If I tweet will you cite? The effect of social media exposure of articles on downloads and citations. International Journal of Public Health 2016;61(4):513-20(doi: 10.1007/s00038-016-0831-y) The authors investigated whether exposing scientific papers to social media (blog post, Twitter and Facebook) has an effect on article downloads and […]
-
B – Scientific crowdfunding projects21 December 2016Schäfer MS, Metag J, Feustle J, et al. Selling science 2.0: what scientific projects receive crowfunding online? Public Understanding of Science Sep 19, 2016;pii: 0963662516668771 Crowdfunding has emerged as an additional source for financing research in recent years. This study identifies and tests explanatory factors influencing the success of scientific crowdfunding projects by drawing on news […]
-
B – Updating of systematic reviews21 December 2016Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016;354:i3507(doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3507) Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. The panel for updating […]
-
B – ISMPP Code of Ethics21 December 2016International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP). Code of Ethics for medical research publication. Principles for publication professionals. Nov. 1, 2016 Following the release of the previous ISMPP Code of Ethics in 2011, this 2016 revision advances ethical best practices, engages a broader community, and incorporates pivotal professional guidelines that have been published since 2011 and […]
-
B – Using popular culture in science communication20 December 2016Zehr EP. With great power comes great responsibility – A personal philosophy for communicating science in society. eNeuro 2016;3(5):ENEURO.0200-16.2016(doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0200-16.2016) Since science continues to influence more and more aspects of daily life and knowledge, there is a parallel need for communication about science in our society. The article is based mostly on the author’s own experiences […]
-
B – Quantity and/or quality?20 December 2016Sandström U, van den Besselaar P. Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0166149(doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166149) Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or do high productive researchers mainly produce a sea of irrelevant papers? This study investigates the relation between productivity and production of highly cited […]
-
B – Use of stings, hoaxes and irony in scientific publishing20 December 2016Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly 2016;32(3):208-19(doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4) The use of stings, hoaxes and irony in academic journals contributes to the overall level of mistrust and erosion of ethical values in science publishing. The authors focused on six such cases, providing a rationale why […]
-
B – Big data and machine learning20 December 2016Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ. Predicting the future — big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375:1216-19(doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1606181) To be useful, data must be analyzed, interpreted, and acted on. Thus, it is algorithms — not data sets — that will prove transformative. Machine learning will become an indispensable tool for […]
