-
B – Rewarding reviewers22 June 2016Warne V. Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing 2016;29(1):41-50 In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the […]
-
B – What makes a good policy paper22 June 2016Whitty JM. What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Medicine 2015;13:301(doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8) Getting relevant science and research into policy is essential. There are several barriers, but the easiest to reduce is making papers more relevant and accessible to policymakers. Opinion pieces backed up by footnotes are generally unusable for policy. Objective, rigorous, […]
-
B – Post-publication peer review22 June 2016Teixeira da Silva A, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research2015;22(1):22-40(doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909) Errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve […]
-
B – OA and knowledge translation22 June 2016Adisesh A, Whiting A. Power to the people – open access publishing and knowledge translation. Occupational Medicine 2016;66:264-265(doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv191) This Editorial attempts to demystify the rights and wrongs of self-archiving and explains some of the issues around open access (OA) publishing. There are essentially three major publication options for authors: no cost for publication in a […]
-
B – Rule violations22 June 2016Gächter S, Schulz JF. Intrinsec honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 2016;531:496-499(doi: 10.1038/nature17160)The authors present cross-societal experiments from 23 countries around the world that demonstrate a robust link between the prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. They developed an index of the ‘prevalence of rule violations’ (PRV). Their results suggest […]
-
B – Sharing clinical trial data17 June 2016Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. Sharing clinical trial data. A proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA February 2, 2016;315(5):467-468 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) believes that there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share data generated by interventional clinical trials because participants have put themselves […]
-
B – Statistical reporting errors in psychology17 June 2016Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CHJ, van Assen MALM, et al. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985-2013). Behavior Research Methods 2015:1-22(doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2) This study documents reporting errors in a sample of over 250,000 p-values reported in eight major psychology journals from 1985 until 2013, using the null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Results showed that half of […]
-
B – Public registry of competing interests17 June 2016Dunn AG. Set up a public registry of competing interests. Nature 2016 May 5;533(7601):9. (doi: 10.1038/533009a2016) According to the author, publishing system for disclosing competing interests is still fragmented, inconsistent and inaccessible. About half of the studies that involve researchers who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them, and the common causes are inconsistent requirements […]
-
B – Reviewer fatigue?17 June 2016Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J, et al. Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers’ work. PS: Political Science & Politics 2015;48(4):595-600.(doi: 10.1017/S1049096515000827) The double-blind peer review process is central to publishing in academic journals, but it also relies heavily on the voluntarily efforts of anonymous reviewers. Journal editors have increasingly become concerned […]
-
B – OA publishing trend analysis17 June 2016Poltronieri E, Bravo E, Curti M, et al. Open access publishing trend analysis: statistics beyond the perception. Information Research 2016;21(2), paper 712. This analysis aimed to track the number of OA journals acquiring impact factor, and to investigate the distribution of subject categories pertaining to these journals in the period 2010-2012. Results showed a growth […]
-
B – Gender analysis in health system research16 June 2016Morgan R, George A, Ssali S, et al. How to do (or not to do)…gender analysis in health system research. Health Policy and Planning 2016;1-10(doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw037) The article outlines what gender analysis is and how gender analysis can be incorporated into health system research (HSR) content, process and outcomes. It recommends exploring whether and how […]
-
B – The Flesch Reading Ease measure16 June 2016Hartley J. Is time up for the Flesch measure of reading ease? Scientometrics 2016;107(3):1523-26(doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1920-7) The Flesch Reading Ease measure is widely used to measure the difficulty of text in various disciplines, including Scientometrics. This paper argues that the measure is now outdated, used inappropriately, and unreliable. According to the author, it is now time […]
