-
B – Scientometric analysis on big data21 September 2015Vivek KS, Sumit KB, Khushboo S, et al. Scientometric mapping of research on “Big Data”. Scientometrics e-pub 9 Sept. 2015(doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1729-9) This paper presents a scientometric analysis of research work done on the emerging area of “Big Data” in the years 2010-2014. The analysis maps comprehensively the parameters of total output, growth of output, authorship and country-level […]
-
B – Ethical ambiguity in physics21 September 2015Ecklund EH, Johnson DR, Matthews KRW. Study highlights ethical ambiguity in physics. Physics Today 2015;68(6):8-10 As part of a study entitled “Ethics Among Physicists in Cross-National Context” the authors interviewed 170 physicists at US and UK universities and the results suggest that ethical issues in physics are not as black and white as many physicists […]
-
B – Open access and peer review system21 September 2015Arns M. Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature 2014;515:467 As numbers of published articles rise, the scholarly review system must adapt to avoid unmanageable burdens and slipping standards. The migration of scholarly journals from print to digital increases the burden on reviewers. The increased pressure means that papers are assigned to reviewers who are not experts […]
-
B – Cluster randomized trials21 September 2015Meurer WJ, Lewis RJ. Cluster randomized trials evaluating treatments applied to groups. JAMA 2015;313(20):2068-2069(doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.5199) Sometimes a new treatment is best introduced to an entire group of patients rather than to individual patients. One approach to evaluate the efficacy of such treatments is to conduct a cluster randomized trial. According to the authors, four points […]
-
B – FASTR legislation21 September 2015Conover E. Getting up to seed on FASTR legislation. APS News 2015;24(8):1-6. A bill that would mandate public access to federally funded research, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) was approved by the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. This would require that peer-reviewed scientific publications from federally funded research be made freely […]
-
B – A modern scientific infrastructure14 September 2015Brembs B. What should a modern scientific structure look like? The Winnower 2015; 2:e143497.72726 (doi: 10.15200/winn.143497.72726) A fully functional infrastructure could collect data from each scientist with regard to their productivity (data, code, publications, reviews), popularity (downloads, media presence, citations, recommendations), teaching (hours, topics, teaching material) or service (committees, administration, development). What is required is an […]
-
B – Access and discovery14 September 2015Powell A. Availability does not equal access. The Scholarly Kitchen May 21, 2015 The link between access and discovery of information is crucial. Discovery is a complex concept, a web made of tools, technologies, infrastructure and perhaps most importantly, relationships built on an understanding of the needs of users. INASP (an international development charity working […]
-
B – Responding to reviewers14 September 2015Responding to reviewers. San Francisco Edit 2015 If an author’s manuscript has been provisionally accepted, he/she needs to plan a strategy for revising the paper. A list of actions is here presented that will assist authors in resubmitting a revised manuscript and responses to reviewers’ comments. http://www.sfedit.net/reviewers.pdf
-
B – Conflict of interest policies14 September 2015Steinbrook R, Kassirer JP, Angell M. Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea. BMJ 2015;350:h2942(doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2942) A series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has questioned whether the conflict of interest movement has gone too far in its campaign to stop the drug industry influencing the medical profession. […]
-
B – Peer review14 September 2015Bornmann L, Haunschild R. The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedure. Scientometrics 2015;102(3):2187-2188 The peer review in journals is generally regarded as a closed procedure, where the report can only be seen by the editor and the authors of the paper assessed, and the peer reviewer does not receive […]
-
B – Double-blind review7 September 2015Palus S. Is double-blind review better? APS News 2015;24(7):5-6. As of March 2015 Nature started offering anonymity for authors, a double-blind peer-review process across all its journals. This article discusses the advantages and problems of double-blind reviewing and describes a number of previous trials of the system. Questions about usefulness of the practice remain.http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201507/
-
B – Updated Good Publication Practice guideline GPP33 September 2015Battisti WP, Wager E, Bltzer L, et al. Good Publication Practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPP3. Annals of Internal Medicine e-pub 11 August 2015(doi:10.7326/M15-0288) The updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions (originally published in 2003 and updated in 2009 as GPP2) and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations […]
