-
B – Tweeting at scientific conferences30 March 2015Ekins S, Perlstein EO. Ten simple rules of live tweeting at scientific conferences. PLoS Computational Biology 2014;10(8):e1003789(doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003789) Increasingly, some scientists are using Twitter as a vehicle to summarize presentations and posters at conferences in real time, which is defined as “live tweeting.” The advantage is that the information tweeted is open and free to […]
-
B – Retractions of scientific publications26 March 2015Katavić V. Retractions of scientific publications: responsibility and accountability. Biochemia Medica 2014;24(2):217-222(doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.024) This evidence-based opinion piece gives a short overview of the increase in retractions of publications in scientific journals and discusses various reasons for that increase. Also discussed are some of the recent prominent cases of scientific misconduct, the number of authors with […]
-
B – Asian science and technology journals26 March 2015Jang H, Kim H. Research output of science, technology and bioscience publications in Asia. Science Editing 2014;1(2):62-70(doi: 10.6087/kcse.2014.1.62) This paper aims to examine science and technology journals in Asia and to find ways to enhance the visibility and frequency of citation of articles. The research output of twelve countries in science and engineering over the last five […]
-
B – Code share26 March 2015Code share. (Editorial). Nature 2014;514:536 (doi: 10.1038/514536a) A core element of many papers is the computercode used by authors in models, simulations and data analysis. In an ideal world, this code would always be transportable and easily used by others. Nature editorial policy now mandates that when code is central to reaching a paper’s conclusions, […]
-
B – F1000 postpublication peer review service26 March 2015Waltman L, Costas R. F1000 recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Informations Science and Technology 2014;65(3):433-445(doi: 10.1002/asi.2014.65.issue-3/issuetoc) Faculty of 1000, abbreviated F1000, and recently renamed F1000Prime, is a commercial online postpublication peer review service for biological and medical research. Reviews are produced […]
-
B – Data sharing26 March 2015Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Data sharing: make outbreak research open access. Nature 2015;518:477-479(doi: 10.1038/518477a) In an increasingly connected world, rapid sequencing, combined with new ways to collect clinical and epidemiological data, could transform our response to outbreaks. But the power of these potentially massive data sets to combat epidemics will be realized only […]
-
B – Features of top-rated gold OA journals26 March 2015Ennas G, Di Guardo MC. Features of top-rated gold open access journals: an analysis of the scopus database. Journal of Informetrics 2015;9(1)(doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.007) This study aimed to identify the features of top-rated gold open access (OA) journals by testing seven main variables: languages, countries, years of activity and years in the DOAJ repository, publication fee, […]
-
B – Health care’s big data26 March 2015White SE. A review of big data in health care: challenges and opportunities. Open Access Bioinformatics 2014;6:13-18(doi: 10.2147/OAB.S50519) Health care is a high-data volume industry. A literature review was conducted to identify recent articles about the use of big data in health care. These data has the potential to revamp the process of health care delivery in the US […]
-
B – Medical writer learning26 March 2015Guillemard M. What every medical writer needs to know. Medical Writing 2014;23(2):134-135(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000215) A medical writer is never done with learning. Learning means getting involved in the digital environment and using tools like social media, websites, and blogs to enhance online presence and develop career. Medical writers should have a strong online presence such as: […]
-
B – Academic career23 March 2015Austin J. What it takes. Science 2014;344(6190):1422(doi: 10.1126/science.344.6190.1422) Science Careers posted a widget that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they will someday become principal investigators. Four factors are indicated as the most important ingredients of academic career success: be male, be selfish, be elite, publish in journals with high impact factors. They are […]
-
B – High-impact-factor syndrome23 March 2015Caves C.M. High-impact-factor Syndrome. APS News 2014;23(10):8,6 The author discusses the use of the bibliometric high impact factor used as a proxy for assessing a scientist’s work, the malign influence this is having. He suggests a number of ways to try to prevent this and to conform to best practices for conducting and evaluating research. […]
-
B – Authorship matrix23 March 2015Clement TP. Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics 2014;20:345-361(doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3) The author proposes a rational method for assessing the responsibilities of an author of a scientific multi-authormanuscript. This new paradigm conceptually divides an article into four basic elements for which individual responsibilities can […]
