-
B – Medical journalism5 January 2016Whelan J. Medical journalism: another way to write about science. Medical Writing 2015; 24(4):219-21 (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 […]
-
B – Monitoring the transition to open access5 January 2016Jubb M, Goldstein S, Amin M, et al. Monitoring the transition to open access. A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. Research Information Network August 2015; 105 p. Reliable indicators should be gathered on key features of the transition to open access (OA) in the UK. The findings presented in the report […]
-
B – Interdisciplinary research5 January 2016Van Noorden R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 2015 September 16;525(7569):306-7(doi: 10.1038/525306a) Interdisciplinary work is considered crucial by scientists, policy-makers and funders. This study reveals the extent and impact of research that bridges disciplines.The fraction of paper references that point to work in other disciplines is increasing in both the natural and the social […]
-
B – Research impact assessment models and methods5 January 2016Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems 2015;13:18(doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1) The purpose of this narrative literature review is to synthesize evidence that describes processes and conceptual models for assessing policy and practice impacts of public health research. The literature is characterised by […]
-
B – Academic misconduct5 January 2016Hvistendahl M. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science 2015;350(6264):1015(doi: 10.1126/science.350.6264.1015) China’s main basic research agency is cracking down on scientists who used fake peer reviews to publish papers, demanding that serious offenders return research funding. Since 2012 scores of authors, many of them Chinese, have been snagged in a peer-review scandal involving papers published in […]
-
B – Making the most of peer review4 January 2016Slavov N. Point of view: making the most of peer review. eLIFE 2015 Nov 11;4:e12708(doi: 10.7554/eLIFE.12708) Many of the legitimate concerns about papers raised on blogs and other platforms are being ignored by journals. Journals should publish referee reports, and referees should be encouraged to sign their reports. Journals should also consider non-anonymous post-publication comments […]
-
B – Build digital democracy4 January 2016Helbing D, Pournaras E. Society: build digital democracy. Nature 2015 Nov 5;527(7576):33-4. (doi: 10.1038/527033a) Open sharing of data that are collected with smart devices would empower citizens and create jobs, say the authors of this article. A research team has started to create a distributed, privacy-preserving ‘digital nervous system’ called Nervousnet. It uses the sensor […]
-
B – The Resource Identification Initiative4 January 2016Bandrowski A, Brush M, Grethe JS, et al. The Resource Identification Initiative: a cultural shift in publishing. Journal of Comparative Neurology 2016;524(1):8-22(doi: 10.1002/cne.23913) The Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the Methods sections of articles and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The […]
-
B – Hijacking a journal23 December 2015Bohannon J. How to hijack a journal. Science 2015;350(6263):903-905(doi: 10.1126/science.350.6263.903)In the past few years fraudsters are snatching entire web addresses, right out from under academic publishers, erecting fake versions of their sites, and hijacking their journals, along with their web traffic. The usual method is to build a convincing version of a website at a similar address […]
-
B – Authorship: myths and misconceptions23 December 2015Menezes RG, Kharoshah MA, Madadin M, et al. Authorship: few myths and misconceptions. Science and Engineering Ethics e-pub Dec 15 2015;1-5(doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9742-1) This article addresses and dispels some of the popular myths and misconceptions surrounding authorship of a scientific publication as this is often misconstrued by beginners in academia especially those in the developing world. […]
-
B – Storing and accessing biomedical big data23 December 2015Bourne PE, Lorsch JR. Green ED. Sustaining the big-data ecosystem. Nature Nov 5 2015;527(doi: 10.1038/527S16a) Biomedical big data offer tremendous potential for making discoveries, but the cost of sustaining these digital assets and the resources needed to make them useful have received relatively little attention. Funders should encourage the development of new metrics to ascertain […]
-
B – Why scientists decline to review papers23 December 2015Breuning M, Backstrom J, Brannon J, et al. Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peer’s 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. To evaluate the degree to which scholars suffer […]
