-
B – The rise of predatory publishers29 October 2014Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2014;107(10):384-385(doi: 10.1177/0141076814548526)Some unscrupolous publishers are exploiting the open-access (OA) model by corrupting the peer-review process, which is often absent or minimal, and by charging large fees to authors. Such publishers and their journals are referred to as ‘predatory’. Their motivation is […]
-
B – Visibility of Argentinean publications29 October 2014Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Miguel S, de Moya-Anegón F. What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research. Scientometrics e-pub 29 August2014(doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1414-4) Argentina´s patterns of publication in the humanities and social sciences were studied for the period 2003–2012, using the Scopus database and […]
-
B – Rubriq: a peer review service29 October 2014Stemmle L, Collier K. RUBRIQ: tools, services, and software to improve peer review. Learned Publishing 2013;26(4):265-268(doi: 10.1087/20130406) The authors describe the Rubriq peer review service. It is an author-pays model that facilitates a fast, independent, and standardized double-blinded peer review from three expert academic reviewers, who are paid for their efforts. This service should improve […]
-
B – Research credibility29 October 2014Ioannidis JPA. How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine 2014;11(10):e1001747(doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747) Currently, many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted. To improve the credibility and efficiency of scientific research, some practices may help increase the proportion of true research findings. They are: adoption of […]
-
B – How to develop high-quality, ethical clinical manuscripts14 October 2014Hindle A, Tobin SC, Robens J, et al. Working with authors to develop high-quality, ethical clinical manuscripts: Guidance for the professional medical writer. Medical Writing 2014;23(3):228-235(doi: 10.1179/2047480614Z.000000000229) This article provides medical writers with advice on how to help researchers prepare high-quality clinical manuscripts for publication in English-language journals, and consider some ethical issues. Authors will then […]
-
B – Retraction notices and COPE guidelines14 October 2014Balhara YP, Mishra A. Compliance of retraction notices for retracted articles on mental disorders with COPE guidelines on retraction. Current Science 2014;107(5):757-760 This study is aimed at assessing the compliance of retraction notices for articles on mental disorders with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and the impact of open access on post-retraction citation of retracted […]
-
B – Wikipedia citations in journal articles22 September 2014Tohidinasab F, Jamali HR. Why and where Wikipedia is cited in journal articles? Journal of Scientometric Research 2013;2(3):231-238(doi: 10.4103/2320-0057.135415) This research aimed to identify the motivations for citation to Wikipedia in scientific papers. Also, the number of citation to Wikipedia, location of citation, type of citing papers, subject of citing and cited articles were determined and […]
-
B – Science publishing in Russia22 September 2014Teixeira da Silva JA, Lukatkin AS. Challenges to research, science writing and publishing in Russia. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 2013;7(1):66-71 Traditionally, Russian researchers write articles in Russian. They tend to publish articles in a leading Russian journal as it is much easier than to attempt to publish in an English-based […]
-
B – The Kardashian index22 September 2014Hall N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 2014;15:424(doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0) The author proposes the “Kardashian index” (from the name of one of the most followed people on twitter), a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers […]
-
B – Publication bias in social sciences22 September 2014Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014;345(6203):1502-1505(doi: 10.1126/science.1255484) The authors examined every study since 2002 that was funded by TESS (Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences), a national grants programme adopting a rigorous peer review for proposals submitted. They found a strong relationship between the results […]
-
B – Social media use by medical students19 September 2014Harrison B, Gill J, Jalali A. Social media etiquette for the modern medical student: a narrative review. International Journal of Medical Students 2014;2(2):64-67 Most medical students worldwide are using various social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) for file sharing, circulation of educational resources and staying connected with peers. This narrative review examines social media use by […]
-
B – Peer review for RCT19 September 2014Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 2014;12:128(doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z) Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality. Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), may lend themselves to […]
