-
B – Open access impact16 June 2016Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, et al. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016;5:632(doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.1) This review aims to be a resource for current knowledge on the impacts of Open Access by synthesizing important research in three major areas of impact: academic, economic and societal. The evidence […]
-
A – ESE Author Q&A: Omar Sabaj Meruane25 May 2016In the latest edition of our ESE Author Q&A series, we speak to Omar Sabaj Meruane of Universidad de La Serena, who published the article ‘Relationship between the duration of peer-review, publication decision, and agreement among reviewers in three Chilean journals’ in the November 2015 issue of European Science Editing 41(4). This article is of […]
-
A: ESE Author Q&A: Lisa Colledge29 April 2016In August, European Science Editing featured an article by Lisa Colledge and Chris James from the research metrics team at Elsevier. The paper, titled A “basket of metrics”—the best support for understanding journal merit, deals with one of the most interesting and pressing elements of scholarly publishing and academia – the use of statistics to […]
-
A: ESE Author Q&A: Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta11 April 2016For the second instalment of our ESE Authors interview series, we spoke to psychiatrist, Professor Rajshekhar Bipeta of Gandhi Medical College, Musheerabad, India. Professor Bipeta is a consultant psychiatrist, at a private practice in Hyderabad since 2002. He is Associate Editor for the Indian Journal of PsychologicalMedicine, and sits on the Editorial Boards for Telangana […]
-
B – Peer review under the spotlight5 April 2016Banks M. Peer review under the spotlight. Physics World 2016;29(2):12-13 The article discusses the increasing difficulties facing peer review and discusses various possible solutions including double blind peer review, open peer review and payment of reviewers and other possible ways of incentivizing reviewers.http://live.iop-pp01.agh.sleek.net/2016/01/27/peer-review-under-the-spotlight/(Thanks to John Glen)
-
B – How to make published science more rigorous1 April 2016Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, et al. A tragedy of errors. Nature 2016; 530:27-29 In this article the authors summarized their experience, the main barriers they encountered, and their thoughts on how to make published science more rigorous. They outlined the following problems: editors are often unable or reluctant to take speedy and appropriate […]
-
B – Overpowering images1 April 2016Redberg RF. Overpowering images. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(1):17(doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6933) While there has been an exponential increase in medical imaging, there are few data demonstrating improvements in outcome, and imaging that requires ionizing radiation is known to be harmful. The “slippery slope” story of Dr Michael Barry et al illustrates one of the unintended harms of graphic […]
-
B – Health-related data protection1 April 2016Dove ES, Thompson B, Knoppers BM. A step forward for data protection and biomedical research. The Lancet 2016;387(10026):1374-1375 A European General Data Protection Regulation that is favourable for research was agreed by Member States and Parliament in December 2015. The Regulation deems health-related data and genetic data as so-called special categories of sensitive data, subject […]
-
B – Reporting P values in the biomedical literature1 April 2016Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AH, et al. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990-2015. JAMA 2016;315(11):1141-1148(doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.1952) Many research fields in biomedicine and other disciplines use statistical testing methods that report P values to convey inferences about study results. There is increasing concern that P values are often misused, misunderstood, and […]
-
B – Core competencies for scientific editors30 March 2016Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, et al. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. BMC Medicine 2016;14:16(doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2) This scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of scientific editors of biomedical journals. It informs readers on the extent and nature of existing literature in this area, as […]
-
B – Personalized medicine30 March 2016Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 2015;520:609-611 (doi:10.1038/520609a) Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them. The top ten highest-grossing drugs in the United States help between 1 in 25 and 1 in 4 of the people who take them. Recognition that physicians need to take individual […]
-
B – Emerging trends in peer review30 March 2016Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2015;9:169.(doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169) “Classical peer review” has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for […]
