-
N – Springer Nature research data policies2 August 2016Springer Nature is introducing a set of standardised research data policies, aiming to have “the most comprehensive and inclusive research data policy of any large publisher”. Aiming where possible to harmonise policies across many journals, while recognising the different data sharing needs and expectations of different communities, Springer Nature has opted for a modular set […]
-
N – Dutch research misconduct and reproducibility funds2 August 2016The Dutch government has committed €8 million to explore research misconduct and reproduce key studies. As reported by Times Higher Education, all researchers in the Netherlands will be questioned about their possible involvement in research misconduct or ‘sloppy science’, and a fund will be set up for replication of research that has influenced policy or […]
-
N – How Can I Share It?2 August 2016How Can I Share it? (www.howcanishareit.com) is an initiative of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), launched in May 2016. A long-standing STM working group has been exploring the effects of scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs), such as ResearchGate, Mendeley, Readcube and many others. The working group developed a set of voluntary […]
-
How Can I Share It?2 August 2016How Can I Share it? (www.howcanishareit.com) is an initiative of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), launched in May 2016. A long-standing STM working group has been exploring the effects of scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs), such as ResearchGate, Mendeley, Readcube and many others. The working group developed a set of voluntary […]
-
Badges for books2 August 2016Altmetric has enabled Badges for Books, for displaying how much attention a published book and its individual chapters have received. The badges are linked to ISBNs and record mentions in mainstream media, policy documents, reference managers, blogs, social media, and peer review platforms. The service launched on the Routledge Handbooks Online platform.
-
N – Badges for books2 August 2016Altmetric has enabled Badges for Books, for displaying how much attention a published book and its individual chapters have received. The badges are linked to ISBNs and record mentions in mainstream media, policy documents, reference managers, blogs, social media, and peer review platforms. The service launched on the Routledge Handbooks Online platform.
-
N – WAME professionalism code of conduct2 August 2016The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) has developed a professional code of conduct for medical journal editors. The code of conduct covers six areas: research integrity; personal development; policies and behaviour; editorial independence; best practice; and relevance. The code was created following discussions at WAME’s 2015 International Conference for Medical Journal Editors.
-
B – Scientists’ participation in public debates24 June 2016Woolston C. Scientists are cautious about public outreach. Nature Febr. 2015 Scientists think that they should actively participate in public debates about science and technology – but many have misgivings about doing so, according to a survey of nearly 4,000 US researchers. Of the respondents, 87% said that scientists should “take an active role in public policy […]
-
B – Writing for lay audiences24 June 2016Salita JT. Writing for lay audiences: a challenge for scientists. Medical Writing 2015;424(4):183-189(doi: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000320) Writing for lay audiences, especially lay summaries, is needed to increase health and science literacy, but this kind of writing can be difficult for scientists. The article describes why it can be so difficult and gives some advice on how scientists […]
-
B – Medical journalism24 June 2016Whelan J. Medical journalism: another way to write about science. Medical Writing 2015;24(4):219-221(doi: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000327) True journalism differs from public relations and uncritically reproducing press releases. It involves doing background research into the context surrounding the finding being reported, seeking comments from independent experts, and highlighting the negative as well as positive aspects. In this article, […]
-
B – Replicating psychology studies22 June 2016Bohannon J. Many psychology papers fail replication test. Science 2015;349(6251):910-911(doi: 10.1126/science.349.6251.910) In the Open Science Collaboration, 270 psychologists from around the world signed up to replicate studies; they did not receive any funding. The group selected the studies to be replicated based on the feasibility of the experiment, choosing from those published in 2008 in […]
-
B – Sex and gender equity in research: SAGER guidelines22 June 2016Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, et al. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016;1:2(doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6) This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. The […]
